But this is not about energy! Yes, burning fossil fuels is a bad. But supposing we had limitless, free, eco-friendly energy - it still do anything to solve the problems of food shortages and over-population, destruction of the rain forest and oceans.
Taking the optimistic view, our hope has to be that we will be able to solve the short term problems of dependency on fossil fuels and then generate enough wealth to be able to solve the other issues. There is no doubt that wealthier people have fewer children, and they have the concern, energy and wealth to be able to care about the environment.
After, all if you and your family are starving in the Congo, Africa, the last thing on your mind is going to be global warming.
Forget the Financial crisis; it will be the Eco Crisis that will kill us
by eyeslice 35 Replies latest jw friends
-
eyeslice
-
sammielee24
Can you expand on that?
Sure. I believe that as humans we should take care of our planet..but I also believe we should take care of one another and the living creatures in it...ie polar bears, salmon, whales and the like. I believe that there is too much greed and that when we operate on a system that dictates ownership as being the only portrayl of status or value in a society, that we will ultimately destroy the environment in order to meet those values.
Governments put regulations in place or not - depending on their own belief system and vision of success for their country. That vision may not be in the best interest of the environment nor the people, but depends in large part on the administration body who makes the rules and their own personal wealth.
A corrupt government, whose leaders fuel their own personal wealth by oil or diamonds or wood or water for example, care little about environmental effects or damage to another country or the people there - their main quest is money. All the rest should it be destroyed is simply collateral damage.
Right now we have used amazing resources to build massive homes in this country that use up more resources and at any time, a government could have put laws into place that simply demanded use of solar panels on those homes where feasible. They could have demanded that new subdivisions include lighting and landscaping that were environmentally friendly and efficient. The builders cry not enough profit, but perhaps it would have been just a case of not as much profit.They chose not to. Now we have millions of homes in forclosure and people walking away from them while at the same time, more people are living in their cars and on the streets. That makes no sense to me - empty houses and more people sleeping in cars and parks. Malls that are empty - 10 stores vacant - but 2 vans of sleeping people in the parking lot but I realize that is another issue.
A government has the power to put laws into place that protect the environment and that is part of their responsibility. Not living up to that responsibility has dire consequences. Factory farming, paving over green spaces and farmland for more mega stores, not mandating more fuel efficient cars and alternate energy cars, not mandating use of solar in new houses and /or wind in new subdivisions - the list could go on forever, but I believe that the government, more so than the people, have at their disposal the resources to enact these kind of laws that benefit everyone. sammieswife.
-
Homerovah the Almighty
The new Zeitgeist movie talks about global ecological possibilities where power and could be obtained thanks to mother nature and not really hurt
the environment at all, the first part revolves around why we have fallen into a financial crisis and the latter part deals with ecological problems facing the world.
Here is a link from google video to watch the movie in its entirety or you can go to the producers web site and download the film for free, via a torrent.
-
sammielee24
Population control might just be one reason that Monsanto pushes so hard to get their product into places like India and China. If GM foods cause early death, miscarriages and infertility, then that curtails the population. The only problem is that by removing natural seeds from the earth, it causes an inbalance in our environment and no doubt will eventually allow us to starve not only all the animals but all the humans on the planet. sammieswife.
long-term feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms genetically modified (GM) corn seriously affects reproductive health in mice. Non-GMO advocates, who have warned about this infertility link along with other health risks, now seek an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world.
Feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight, according to the study conducted by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said, there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn reproduced more efficiently.
In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM variety (NK 603 x MON 810), or a closely related non-GE variety used in many countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases were found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group.
The corn is genetically modified with genes that produce a pesticidal toxin, as well as genes that allow it to survive applications of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.
A book by author Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette, distributed to members of congress last year, documents 65 serious health risks of GM products, including similar fertility problems with GM soy and GM corn: Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning. Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months, investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products.
The principle GM crops are soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. GM sugar from sugar beets will also be introduced before year’s end.
Mr. Smith, who is also the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology says, “GM foods are likely responsible for several negative health trends in the US. The government must impose an immediate ban on these dangerous crops.” He says, “Consumers don’t need to wait for governmental action. They can download a free Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www.HealthierEating.org .”
Monsanto press offices in the UK and USA were unable to provide a comment on the findings for journalists yesterday.
The Institute for Responsible Technology’s Campaign for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses, and the media, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified foods.
The Institute educates people about the documented health risks of GMOs and provides them with healthier non-GMO product choices.
The Institute also informs policy makers and the public around the world about the impacts of GMOs on health, environment, the economy, and agriculture, and the problems associated with current research, regulation, corporate practices, and reporting.
-
beksbks
Can you expand on that?
Sure.
I couldn't agree more Sammie
-
zagor
I have no faith in world rulers, and I fear there is a real possibility that we are screwing this planet to point of no return.
Well over the millions of years this planet has been through ups and downs and has never reached the point of no return, but individual species have. No matter what we do, (unless we use some major weapons) this planet will survive and nature will balance itself out eventually, that is, after all, how the nature works. Will we as a society and civilization preserve our way of living or even survive depends on many factors and our ability to embrace changing circumstances. I tend to believe that if worst comes to worst (individual) people will survive but again those people who are able to work through tough times and find the way when there's no way.
Those who find it hard to adopt to changing circumstances as it is (even in lesser things now) will unfortunately get to taste what survival of the fittest really means on their own skin. It sounds really harsh but I think for us to change our attitudes we need to be able to cut the crap and see things for what they really are and leave all wimpiness behind. This is the time that requires both intellect and strong will, particularly in leadership from running the country all the way down to running individual families. Anything less than that will simply not measure up.
As for our civilization we gotta remember that there has never ever been one that eventually hasn't fallen. It is the part of natural process. But remnants of any of those have gone and usually created even greater things. I guess the question each one of us can ask ourseleves is, "I'm I such material?" and for men in particular "can my family rely on my decisions to get the out of harm's way into better living despite everything around?" It cuts really deep but mankind is indeed in deep shit right now and situation will expose what material each one of us is made out of.
I hope for the sake of our children that never happens, and that we solve world problems without major upheaval but something tells me we are in for a change, big time, not from "god" but a change that is natural outcome of everything this planet has been put through.