You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / The End Is Near

The End Is Near


By davidswanson - Posted on 26 June 2012

Apocalypse has been given a bad name.  The Seventh Day Adventists are still around.  The Nike sneaker cult failed to open Heaven's Gate.  The new millennium brought us George W. Bush, not Jesus H. Christ.  And everybody's terrified of "drinking the Kool-Aid."

But our species is living beyond its means.  If we continue down this path, the planet, our food supplies, our climate, and life as we know it will collapse.  If we bring population growth, consumption, and pollution under control, the damage already set in motion will play out for centuries, but complete catastrophe will likely be averted.

Nobody likes to be told that the end might be near.  Either it is or it isn't.  And the question is resolved by a personal lifestyle choice.  Do I wish to be a pessimist or an optimist?  Of course, optimist is far more popular.  Even most predictors of apocalypse have actually believed they were predicting a good thing.  The world was to be replaced with something better.  Even our best environmentalists who understand the radical changes needed for survival guarantee they will happen.  Harvey Wasserman says he simply believes in happy endings.

Meanwhile, we can barely get half of us in the United States to "believe" that global warming is happening.  Of course, we step outside and there's a sauna, but that could just be "natural."  So what if the ocean is a few inches higher?  The people who've been predicting that for decades have been wrong until now, and now they're only a little right -- if you even believe them.  The ocean looks about the same to me.  And if they predict exponential acceleration of such changes, meaning that once the changes have become visible it won't be long before they're enormous, well that just proves one thing: they've drunk the Kool-Aid.  They're pessimists.

In 1992, governments finally got together in Rio and took some baby steps.  In 2012, they reconvened and collectively proclaimed, "To hell with all that.  This rock may be doomed, but that's our great-grandchildren's problem.  Screw them! This is Rio.  Roll down the windows.  Turn up the air conditioning.  Pass me a drink!"  Well, actually, a few scientists and diplomats stood off to the side and muttered, "What we need to save us is a really bad catastrophe."  And a 17-year-old girl stood up and blurted out the truth, which made everybody feel really important.  Imagine: you were at the meeting that could have chosen to save the planet; how cool is that?  Imagine how the judge feels who is sitting in Washington, D.C., deliberating on whether the atmosphere ought to be protected or destroyed.  The atmosphere!  Of the earth!  Now that's power, and the longer you deliberate the longer you can fantasize about possibly even using that power. 

In 1972 a group of scientists published a book called Limits to Growth.  It passionately urged the changes needed before human growth and destruction exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet.  In 1992, the same authors published Beyond the Limits.  There were by then, they found, too many humans doing too much damage.  We were beyond sustainable limits and would need to change quickly.  In 2004, they published an update, arguing that we were already 20 percent above global carrying capacity, and that we had "largely squandered the past 30 years."  Their warnings grew sharper: "We do not have another 30 years to dither." 

The updated book charts the course we've been on these past 30, now 40, years.  Population has exploded in less industrialized countries.  Many millions of poor people have been added to our species, while a shrinking percentage of the world's population has continued to hoard most of the wealth.  The planet has become less equitable through the repeated act of giving birth.  Then it has become less equitable still through economic growth that has been made to benefit most those least in need.  Meanwhile, nations with high population growth have been least able to invest in infrastructure, being obliged to take care of their people's immediate needs.  This has resulted in still greater poverty, triggering higher birth rates in families dependent on children to survive.  These vicious cycles can be broken, and have been broken, but not by wishing or hoping.  And time is running out.

Sustainable agriculture is being practiced in some places and could feed us all if practiced everywhere and the food distributed to everyone.  The problem is not figuring out what to do so much as simply doing it.  But we can't do it individually, and we can't wait for those in power to do it on their own.

Corporations will not learn to make more money by behaving responsibly, not to a sufficient extent to reverse current trends.  The logic of the market will not correct itself, except in the most brutal sense.  If we wait for Wall Street to decide that destroying the Earth is a bad idea, the basic systems of life on Earth will collapse in shortages, crises, and widespread suffering.  Instead, we have to enforce change as a society, and we have to do it now.  If we'd acted in 1982, write the authors of Limits to Growth, we might have avoided serious damage.  If we'd acted in 2002, we also still had a fighting chance.  By 2022, it will be too late to avoid decline.  We're halfway there.

Limits to Growth offers the crisis of the ozone layer as evidence that humanity can face up to a global environmental disaster and correct it.  Of course, we can.  We have always had that option and always will.  Even beyond 2022, we will have the option of lessening the destruction to as great an extent possible.  But slowing the damage to the ozone layer required changes to a relatively small industrial cartel, nothing to compare to big oil.  The question is not, I think, whether the world can act collectively on behalf of the Earth.  The question is whether the world can act collectively against the organized strength of the fossil fuels industry, its closely aligned military forces in the United States and NATO, and governments far gone down the path of inverted totalitarianism. 

For you optimists, I should point out that living sustainably need not mean suffering.  We could live better lives with less consumption and destruction.  Our culture can grow while our population declines.  Our society can advance while our production of waste products retreats.  Our mental horizons can broaden while our food sources narrow.  Millennia from now, people living sustainably on this planet could look back with wonder at the insanity of the notion that everything had to grow, and with gratitude toward those who gave their fellow passengers an awakening smack to the face.

Here's one small place to start.

I didn't know he had a middle name.  There's Yeshua of Nazareth, but "of" isn't a middle name.  He's aka The Nazarene and there's no middle anything in that appellation. :)

But our species is living beyond its means.  If we continue down this path, the planet, our food supplies, our climate, and life as we know it will collapse.  If we bring population growth, consumption, and pollution under control, the damage already set in motion will play out for centuries, but complete catastrophe will likely be averted.

This world is in big trouble alright, though I don't know that population numbers are a real problem. It's a problem in large cities and I don't know how this can be managed or changed; but I think the rest of the planet is surely okay in terms of human numbers.  Assuming the latter is right, and I strongly believe that it definitely is, because the planet can surely support the present population and an also larger one, if we begin to live with this planet in intelligent and responsible ways; well, there's still a big problem due to Monsanto et al so-called inventions, plus environmentally unhealthy practices in agri. and horti-culture.  That's with re. to agri. and horti-culture, for we of course have many other serious problems caused by humans.

But for agri. there's a recent video at YouTube for what evidently is a very good speech by Bernie Sanders.  He & Barbara Boxer are going after fiend Monsanto, and I enjoyed his speech.

"Bernie Sanders Goes After Monsanto", 15-min, uploaded June 14th

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZtiyAPUCkM
He eventually refers to a Canadian study report published in May.  It's a study in the or a Cdn Reproductive Toxicology journal and is, I believe, quite alarming.  Very large percentages of women and children, fetuses anyway, have been found to be contaminated with Monsanto's toxic Bt, Bacillus thuringiensis.  I did some Web searches to try to find the journal article and got the following link.

"Evidence of GMO toxin absorption and toxicity", by E. Hector Corsi, May 9, 2012

digitaljournal.com/article/324565

The above article also provides a link to a sort of update or at least related article published May 25th.

"Study shows effects of maternal & fetal exposure to pesticides", by Anne Sewell

digitaljournal.com/article/325460

I also came across or else actually searched GreenPeace and found the following interesting note about a letter from some health official in Vancouver, BC, in 2007.  It can be inspirational, say.

"Letter From Vancouver Coastal Health Authority to BC Health Minister on GMOs"

www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/archive/resources_bk/documents/letter-from-vancouver-coastal


Of course we have bad problems like the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which gets little news coverage. And it's among many other examples of severe damage to the environment caused by large corporations and smaller businesses; plus, politicians working against environmental health because they evidently think that environmental health isn't and $ is important.  "Lovely" people.


The article by E. Hector Corsi includes a link for the Cdn medical report, plus reports about studies in France and Switzerland.  All confirm that GMO or certainly Bt is definitely unhealthy, to say the least.

Even our best environmentalists who understand the radical changes needed for survival guarantee they will happen.  Harvey Wasserman says he simply believes in happy endings.

The articles I included links for further above are complementary to what good environmentalists, as well as health experts, have found and reported.

 

Global warming:

Meanwhile, we can barely get half of us in the United States to "believe" that global warming is happening.

You might be more successful in convincing people by using climate change, instead of warming.  It might be different today, but for the first years of claims of GW, it wasn't credible everywhere.  Some places got cooling, instead.  Many scientific experts said that it wasn't truly global warming, for there wasn't warming everywhere on this planet.   Global means global, everywhere, certainly when speaking of climate changes anyway.  Scientists said the average global temperature was slightly rising, but also said that this is just a global average, for the rising wasn't happening everywhere. So the GW activists easily could sound like idiotic fanatics.  They were careless.


Also, a lot of people in Quebec welcome the warming trend; milder winters, sooner and milder spring periods, and longer fall periods.  In cases like this it would be difficult to get these people to be against climate warming. Peope here like the warming.  There surely aren't many Quebecers who would prefer winters of three decades ago and further back.  I don't prefer the winters of the past, but definitely care about the environment, and that's more important for me, so between the two, I would gladly accept winters of the past.  A lot of people wouldn't have this viewpoint or care to share in it though.  There hasn't been a -30F, or even -25F, or colder day here for a LONG time now.  About the coldest we've had for several years now is around -17C, so not even 0F.  We might've gotten -20F, but very seldom, and this is incredible compared to 20 to 30 years ago.


So that tells me warming is happening, but how many people want to return to winters that had -20F, -25F, -30F, -40F?  I don't think you'll get many wanting to race to get back to those temperatures.  Instead, they'll say, "Burn more coal", "Continue the warming trend".  Eventually, it'll possibly be a disaster, but most people are short-sighted anyway.


I didn't notice a serious warming trend here a decade ago, but have been noticing it for a few years now.  And I'm among the many people who welcome this trend.  I don't have personal motorized transportation, so no car, SUV, et cetera. So I appreciate milder winters. BUT, if the warming is truly and entirely, or even seriously, due to human causes, then we have a serious problem and human-caused problems always need to be corrected.


A closing:

 

But a teacher asks students, "Tell me what all of the problems are in this world".  One awake student replies, "No sir/ms; instead, tell us where there isn't a problem, for this question will be much quicker to answer".  End of story?  Teacher answered "Certified organic or at least organic gardening", but a student replied, "Yes, I/we agree that organic is good, but what about conventional agri. and GMO crap from Monsanto et alia?".  Teacher had to admit that he/she only had a limited answer, since most agri. continues to be non-organic, toxic, and environmentally detrimental in other ways.

 

Well, the happy ending for that teacher-student story is entitled, "Back to Eden", www.backToEdenFilm.com. It's a 103-minute documentary about how to grow food crops while using methods that mimic how Nature really works.  The full film has also been uploaded at YouTube by at least a few people and the official website has a FAQ for which answers are provided in very short (1 to 2-minute) video excerpts from the full film.  There's also a text-based How-To page at the official website.  But take note:  People sensitive, say, to hearing and reading references to God and Him as Creator of Nature, and there're many so-called atheists in the US who're extremely fanatical against religion, well, such people will surely explode if they listen to the full film or read the How-To page.  There's nothing religious at all in the FAQ videos though.


The science is what's important in the film and it's just unfortunate that the gardener frequently refers to God as creator of Nature.  But other people are interviewed and none of them refer to anything religious at all.  And I don't really disagree with the gardener about the references to God in the film, though also don't need any religious hand-holding or tutoring, either.  Nevertheless, religion definitely and clearly didn't need to be part of the film at all and too many people who should benefit from the science in the film will explode because of religious references.  Religious or not, we want everyone doing healthy gardening, or agri. and horti-culture. Everyone needs to do and/or support that.  That's why I don't like the gardener's frequent references to God.  It doesn't matter what our religious beliefs are or aren't, we can all learn and benefit from the science related or conveyed in the film.


And that science is not about pessimism or optimism. It's about realism. :)

I don't think the problem is the numbers of people.  Instead, the problems are due to the fact that we don't live with this planet in sustainable ways.  We could, but it's apparently not profitable for Big Business, Corporate America, and so on, and they basically control, dominate over our govts because voters elect and re-elect cons and imcompetent fools who have no business in even wanting to run for political seats.  Who wants to run for seats anyway?  Just grab a chair and sit down, or sit down on a larg rock, whatever. :)

 

It isn't the numbers.  It's how we screw up this world rather than learning to live with it in sustainable ways that constitutes the population problem.  Anyone promoting depopulation is promoting something akin to genocide.  Many "elitists" want human depopulation.  Big Agri. USA is the reason for many starving and poor South Africans, who have a very agriculturally rich soil, but it all gets used to profit multinational corporations that export the food and refuse to provide employment and food for South Africans.  Why do we have inexpensive hi-tech products?  Because of the continuing genocide of the Congolese, whose mineral resources western multinationals work to steal, rather than pay for.  Why is Canadian lumber as inexpensive as it is?  Because we continue to genocide the Canadian Aboriginals who are the real owners of these lands?  And of course the govts, politicians are guilty, instead of only corporate chiefs and shareholders being guilty.  The govts and their police and military forces are all guilty in this.

 

Why did fisheries on the east coast of the USA and Canada get closed down for commercial fishing?  Because of very stupid, greedy, piratic, parasitic fishing industry operators and govts that clearly weren't vigilantly on guard for environmental health.  The Cdn govt nevertheless and violently prohibits Indians from very modest fishing in their own territorial waters in the Maritimes area while the govt is an invasive, creepy, imperialistic, colonialistic, hegemonic, s.o.b. power.  This was less bad on the west coast, for fisheries were less insane there.  But there's still over-fishing though, so some closures or strong restrictions have been legislated. Apparently, Alaskan fisherman can't legally fish for wild north pacific salmon for more than a month to a month and a half per year. 

 

Human population isn't the problem. Human is the problem if human population is a problem for this planet.  If we lived in environmentally sustainable ways, then our present and even future numbers would be supportable by the planet; SURELY.  The problem is how we live with this planet, not our numbers.

 

Palestine is becoming overpopulated, but that's not because of Palestinians. It's because of the US, Israel, and so on, majorly shriking Palestine, which definitely is a state/country, but the white-collar bureaucrats and politicians don't want to grant this recognition.  Go to a town and take away 90% of the land from that town, and then pretend that there isn't enough land to support the population. It's disgusting hypocrisy and hegemony.  South Africans would do very well, if it wasn't for hellbent western multinationals and ethically compromised politicians.  Indigenous peoples worldwide would be doing fine, if it wasn't for us making life impossible for them.

 

If we want depopulation, then I can make some recommendations and it isn't going to consist of the innocent people of this planet.  It also wouldn't consist of naive people making poor and uninformed choices. I have other people, "elites", in mind.

 

This planet, if we lived in sustainable, healthy ways, could surely support 9 billion of us and more.  It's not really the number.  It's the quality of relationship we have or don't have with this planet that matters most of all.  Poison your neighbour's water and then tell your neighbour that this planet just can't support his/her and his/her family's existence, so they need to go.  Go ahead and try to do that.  If the neighbour happens to be me, then there's going to be a wee bit of a problem.

 

Only fanatics working for George Soros, Bill Gates, Rockefellers, Kissinger, and so on, care to entertain the notion of humanly depopulating this planet.  China restricts the Han Chinese to only one child per family, while not doing this to minorities, but it's a country smaller than Canada.  China had 1.3bn population several years ago.  Ca. has maybe 33mn population today and is a larger country, geographically. So of course population can be a serious factor in China, and probably also in India.  But it's for populations to adjust to their situations, rather than exterminators being employed to create a scenario something like the "Soylent Green" sci-fi movie.

 

Control of popuation size is something of value, but it has to be done correctly, justly, and I would say that it's not really a concern in terms of total numbers, but rather in terms of fairness, equitability, and qualitative co-existence with this planet.  What the overall human population is that this planet can truly support in healthy terms is larger than we presently have, but how populations are spread out and concentrated may be of real concern.  The larger a population concentration is, I guess the more it can become environmentally problematic.  Environmental controls are needed even for small towns.  We surely have means or knowledge that would permit applying these controls, whatever they're to be applied.  There must surely be ways of dealing with human waste in environmentally safe ways; even in large volume(s).

 

Of course we need to be rid of GMOs, et cetera, and that's not difficult to do, if voters would stop voting for unvetted and provably unvettable political candidates.   "Where there is a will, there is a way", but we're direly lacking will.  Most members of the whole US Congress are unvettable, but they get elected and re-elected using their little Mr/Ms Astrologist bs'er ways anyway.  40% or so of the population doesn't vote.  They don't have a serious reason to vote, unless a Ralph Nader sort of individual is running for election and is on the voter's ballot. Not everyone, but nearly all candidates who run for Dem. or Repub. Party is socially unhealthy.  Only Barbara Lee opposed recourse to military action against or in Afghanistan in Sept. 2001; only 1 of over 400 House of Reps members.  She's been wrong on other issues, but was the sole Rep. to oppose authorization to recourse to military actions of the USA, et alia, in Afghanistan, and she was definitely right.  Out of 435 voting members of the House of Reps., she was the sole person to take the right position on Sept. 14, 2001.  The sole member!  Even Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were wrong, then, I have to surmise.

 

If the overall vote had been right, if the House of Reps had listened to and applied what Ms Lee said, then we wouldn't have had the wars on Afghanistan, expanded into Pakistan, and Iraq.  But we got what a dumbed down society provides, instead.

 

And no one should be allowed to be capitalist owner of vast amounts of land while very many other people are made to suffer deprivation.  Mr Turner owns 50,000 or more acres and it's good when he says that this is very much for conservation, but he has no rights to this land.  Firstly, it belongs to the indigenous population.  Secondly, no one can have the right to deprive others of means of survival.  My grandfather had 1,000 acres and that's huge, far more than anyone needs, but this was early 20th century when human population was much smaller than it is today.  I visited the farm with my father.  The farm part, for dairy, was tiny compared to the rest of the land, which was all forest, coniferous.  My father said, "See that road over there?", it was in the far distance, I said yeah, and he said that that was how far his father's land reached.  That road looked like thin thread or fishing line.  It was super-thin, but was a full 2-lane road.

 

That can be good for conservation, but there're also human rights and life.  The problem is that we don't co-exist with this planet in sustainable ways.  My grandfather did, but that was a century ago. He lost the farm with the Great Depression era, so it was a long time ago and the human population on this planet has doubled or more than doubled since that time.  Besides, it was nearly all coniferous land and that makes acidic soil, so little use of it could've been immediately made for gardening, except for tomatoes, peppers, ....  The house and barn, plus pasture, were up at the highest point and there was less conifer there.  But Turner owns 50,000 acres or more of indigenous peoples' land.

 

And he's for human depopulation, like thru intentional depopulation projects; as are also Soros, Gates, Kissinger, and other so-called "elites".  Well, that's a good place to start; with them.  I'll be glad to lend a hand.  Can we have a good barbeque with that though?  After all, after a good cleaning job, it's nice to sit down and enjoy a good meal. 

 

Human population isn't a problem.  Human-run govts, corporations, and smaller businesses, plus stupid voters are the problem.  We're overpopulated in terms of the percentages of corrupt politicians and voters, but that's not what the 1972-published book from scientists is about; the book entitled, "Limits to Growth".  We're far from a real, natural limit, except for the fact that we destructively co-exist with this planet, instead of doing it sustainably. 

 

Meanwhile, nations with high population growth have been least able to invest in infrastructure, being obliged to take care of their people's immediate needs. 

What countries might that be? Cuba has been doing it for a long time, while sanctions continue to limit it. Venezuela, with Hugo Chavez as President, has been helping the poor a lot. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide tried, but the US et al were able to prevent him from succeeding.  Some African countries accepting to do business with China get good contracts and China invests or spends on helping the populations in addition to living up to the contracts with the govts, though there's still serious poverty and exploitation (esp. from western multinationals) in China and the govts in Africa doing business with China might not invest much directly gained from China for local populations.  What other countries have govts that truly work to help their or any populations and I mean without discrimination?  We have western front organizations of people who demand freedom, separation for Tibet, but most Tibetans don't ask for this, and the so-called Dalai Lama also doesn't.  We have westerners making up all kinds of fairy tales and mischief.

 

I don't know about all of Canada, but the Quebec govt has long been cheap about and cutting back on social programs.  It was already not good prior to the present PM, but has become worse with Charest as PM.  Back in the 1980s, a person who went to a medical clinic got care within max. 2hrs or so, depending on urgency.  Today, it can take 15, 17, 20hrs.  The Charest govt also wants to raise school costs.  In the 1980s it cost $60 per course in Quebec universities. Now it's over $200 and the Charest govt wants to raise this higher.  Meanwhile, interest rates on school loans are reportedly going to climb 3% or more. Hence, a lot of students in Qc have been protesting. I can't oppose the students, for my university degree was in the 1980s, $60 per course.  So I stay out of all of this, except for occasionally voicing some support for the protesters, who've grown to become far more than only students, because what the govt has been doing is to act against law that permits peaceful assembly and protest.  That's just another reason to be supportive in terms of viewpoint.

 

It's more expensive in other provinces and in the USA, but these places  have different history than Quebec has, so we have to keep Qc history carefully in mind.  Plus, the govts, politicians grant BIG welfare for rich corporations, waste $ on wars that they criminally partake in, and so on. So why not help people take for-credit courses at low cost?  A lot of taxpayers complain, but their arguments are very neglectful.  Also, I attended some courses here over the past year.  I got a BSc and college diploma in the 1980s and did a couple of graduate level courses while working full-time during early 1990s.  The courses I took over the past year are taught in what I consider to be unprofessional manners and it's not due to the professors, who definitely know the material and can teach.  It's the system that's messed up.  That's due to stupid politicians and poor school administration. It's not something the professors are responsible for.  Some leading professors have sided with the striking students, but administration is another circle of people and they've sided the wrong way.  They soak up most university funds and only want more.

 

Population isn't the problem. Mis-management is the problem.

 

Sustainable agriculture is being practiced in some places and could feed us all if practiced everywhere and the food distributed to everyone.  The problem is not figuring out what to do so much as simply doing it.  But we can't do it individually, and we can't wait for those in power to do it on their own.

 

We have to do it individually.  Definitely.  The problem is that only a few individuals working correctly with this planet is definitely not sufficient.  If everyone began to individually produce their own food in environmentally healthy ways, or supported only healthy local farms and international co-operatives, then large corporations that try to sell us their crap and poorly cultivated food would lose out enough that they would have to seek another venue for trying to make or generate revenues.  It's like a boycott.  Everyone has to individually contribute to a boycott.  It's always an individual decision.  But when we join with others, then the number of boycotters grows and this can force changes that corporate chiefs and politicians, these damn clowns, have been refusing to make.  No one joins a boycott without make that choice individually.  Sure, we do it based on information gathered from other people, unless we're the people who discovered and exposed the problems.  The latter is definitely not most boycotters.  Most boycotters read or learn from others, apply some real thinking, and then decide whether or not they also want to join the boycotts.  So there's always individual decision-making involved.

 

I'm for healthy, environmentally sane ways of living.  Why?  Is it because of recent activists?  Surely to some degree, but not only, for we can think about how ancestors lived for thousands of years and that they had political problems, but not environmental ones like those created over the past century or so.   It's only over the past century or so that we've begun to agri. and horti-culturally mess up this world.  And extreme overfishing is from over the past century or so. 

 

Stupid people can't be expected to pave intelligent paths.

 

Corporations will not learn to make more money by behaving responsibly, not to a sufficient extent to reverse current trends.  The logic of the market will not correct itself, except in the most brutal sense.  If we wait for Wall Street to decide that destroying the Earth is a bad idea, the basic systems of life on Earth will collapse in shortages, crises, and widespread suffering.  Instead, we have to enforce change as a society, and we have to do it now.  If we'd acted in 1982, write the authors of Limits to Growth, we might have avoided serious damage.  If we'd acted in 2002, we also still had a fighting chance.  By 2022, it will be too late to avoid decline.  We're halfway there.

Are you trying to make readers feel good?  You send chills up my spine.  Mind you, by 2022, I won't have much longer to live, for I'll be 65.  Nevertheless, people need to act, regardless of age.  But corporations can make more $ by behaving responsibly.  The problem is getting them to learn, understand, realize that they can.

 

Cies, btw, are not people, so they can't understand, learn, ignore, ... anything.  It's the chiefs and shareholders that're meant.  Remember, cies are not citizens and mustn't be treated as citizens, because they're not people.  They're only run and owned by people who already have citizenship and dual-citizenship in the same country is cheating. :)  A company or corporation is not a "who", it's a "which", "it", et cetera.  "Who" is for people.  Cies aren't people.  Americans need to work on language.

 

I like the 1982 idea, but that's a wee bit of time ago, like 3 decades.  I think we're a little late.  We haven't arrived to 2022 yet, but it's coming fast.  Weez in a wee bit big trouble.  We're more than halfway there though. 1982 was 3 decades ago and 2022 is only 1 decade away, so we're 3/4 of the way, not half.  I didn't say that because it's more comforting, for it definitely isn't.
  Do you prefer to be halfway to hell, or 3/4 of the way?  How about 0 of the way?  Oh, that number seems great.  Who ever said that 0 can't be a great number had to be kidding.

For you optimists, I should point out that living sustainably need not mean suffering.  We could live better lives with less consumption and destruction.  Our culture can grow while our population declines.  Our society can advance while our production of waste products retreats.  Our mental horizons can broaden while our food sources narrow.  Millennia from now, people living sustainably on this planet could look back with wonder at the insanity of the notion that everything had to grow, and with gratitude toward those who gave their fellow passengers an awakening smack to the face.

No, living sustainably doesn't mean suffering. It means HEALTH.

 

We can definitely improve on the ways we live, consumption and definitely destruction.

 

Why do we feverishly want the population to decline when the planet can support the current and a growing population, if we only practice sane ways of co-existing with this planet?

 

Reducing waste is a great idea.

 

Why do you want to narrow food sources?  How many different foods do you suggest, 5, maybe 10?  Are you are Dr what's-his-name fan, the Dr who says only 10 foods are healthy, as compared to, say, WHFoods.com, which lists 100 healthy foods but also mentions others and it's not like Nature would leave us with only 5 to 10 options for foods?  Oh, I think it's Dr. Mercola.  He recommends only 10 foods, which is extremely ridiculous for number.  Anyone who says only 10 foods are healthy for us is a nutcase.

 

Millenia from now, people probably won't exist anyway.  Let's think about today and near future, first.  We need to start with what's present and we can foresee for near future.  If we can't correct the problems now, then forget millenia from now.

 

What's wrong with growing everything; all alliums, cabbages, and so on, for vegetables, plus herbs, ornamental flowers, grasses for at least animal feed, et cetera?  We don't have to alter the nature of this planet, but we can certainly create some hybrid plants that're healthy, as long as that's correctly done. It's too late to avoid altering the nature of this planet, due to bad farming practices or methods, open-pit mining, and so on, but while those things, activities need to be stopped, it's not too late yet to minimize damage.  The damage already is "greatly" done.  But, that could be stopped and gradually corrected.  Many fish and seafoods today are not healthy due to mercury and other heavy metals, PCBs, et cetera, caused by humans, but we hypothetically could stop this and time would then take its course and the environment would improve in terms of healthiness ... over  time.

 

It's all a "pipe dream".  Did you ever notice how pipes are?  Both ends are open, what goes in flows out, to wherever the flow is directed or goes.  It's not promising for good dreams. :)

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.