Restoring Nature & Saving Earth -- Solutions In Strange Places
Nature is being destroyed by civilization, and it is the people who are part of civilization that are the agents of the destruction.
How do we restore nature on a global scale, and ensure that "intelligent" life, or its creations, never again become a force of destruction?
Many have tackled this subject throughout recent years, and yet the destruction continues, and continues to accelerate.
Could it be, perhaps, that the answer has yet to be articulated?
Or, could it be that it has been articulated, but has never been shared sufficiently broadly and widely?
Or, perhaps, does no answer exist at all, and we are doomed to be part of a civilization that caused a mass extinction?
The answer lies in an areas infrequently examined by those seeking solutions.
The answer lies in the very structure of our money system, which is the core of our global system of trade or exchange.
Think for a moment about how destruction of a wild forest occurs. Someone believes that they can make money, that they will be paid, in exchange for destroying the forest (by cutting down and selling the trees, blowing it up and mining the coal, etc.) Whether the law approves or disapproves, if the someone determines that they will profit more from destroying the forest, than from doing something else, then it will be destroyed. Even if illegal, the effectiveness of law enforcement, and the punishment or consequences, are figured in. In some cases, those cutting down the trees may be so desperate for money, and seeing this as the best possibility to earn money, that they will break laws, dodge law enforcement, and do whatever it takes to make the money in order to satisfy their desperation.
Exacerbating the situation are the constructs of civilization, most especially energy, technology and corporate organizations. Technology provides the means by which the destruction can be accomplished on a rapid and mass scale. The energy, primarily from non-renewable resources, enables the technology to function, and for more technology to be brought to market. Corporations are legal, artificial persons, whose one and only mission is to earn profit.
Is the money system the problem?
Or could it be that technology, abundant energy, and/or corporations are the problem?
Let's examine a situation where only money is the consideration.
Imagine you are starving, you haven't eaten for days, nor have your family members, plus your loved ones are all very sick, and dying, and all of this could be resolved with some money to buy medicine and food.
Imagine also that the only way to get money is to cut down the very last of a certain species of tree that happens to be very near to where you live.
You would have to decide between destroying the last of a nearly extinct tree or not destroying it.
This may seem like a hypothetical situation, but it is the same situation, that in one form or another, faces almost everyone in the world on a daily basis, for people just doing what they must do in order to live, and in order for their family to live.
What to choose?
The first thing to come into play would be one's own values and ethics.
Do you believe that it is more important to get the money to pay for some food and medicine for your family, which may last a short period of time?
Do you believe the most important goal of intelligent life, and our purpose for being, is to protect, enhance, and restore life?
What would prevent you from killing the tree?
Something inside your mind? Such as:
* An ethical position on the value of other species?
* An understanding of how the destruction of this tree would impact the future?
* A feeling of how your community, and perhaps even your family, would ostracize you?
* A cultural norm and expectation?
* A religious view? sin? bad Karma? persecution in the "afterlife"?
While it is possible to imagine that everyone in the world, when facing this choice, would choose not to destroy the tree, and perhaps even go so far as to protect the tree from others; imagining this does not make it realistic, or perhaps even possible, particular in the short in which we would desire to turn things around.
What features of civilization might prevent us from killing the tree?
* A fence?
* An alarm?
* A guard?
* A law with a possible fine?
* A law with possible incarceration?
* A law that might be enforced?
* A law that absolutely would be enforced?
Absolute enforcement of such laws would be difficult, if not impossible. The likelihood that such laws would be put in place, in order to restore the wilderness and nature, seems even closer to impossible.
In Jared Diamond's book Collapse, there are instances of societies that lived, or now live, sustainably. Diamond concludes that either the society had to be very small and closed, like the small island community of Tikopia; or that there had to be a very strong leader, such as during the time of feudal Japan, where most of the trees (and perhaps most of everything) was the property of the emperor.
If these are known solutions, how might these be used globally, to create a humanity of sustainability, a sustainability that will continue indefinitely?
(Author's Note: I'm trying to puzzle out the solution even as I write this.)
Other authors such as Derrick Jensen suggest that it is the existence of civilization itself that is the problem, and that since civilization is destroying nature, and threatening the lives of future generations, that it is a moral imperative to wage war against civilization, and specifically against the technology that enables civilization.
Still others point out that civilization is rapidly using up the non-renewable energy sources, and that in less than a generation, the amount of this energy (plus any other energy) will rapidly diminish. The effect will be that much technology will no longer be usable, and that the money-economic system will collapse as a result.
Diamond provides many counter examples to sustainability including the story of ancient Easter Island (Rapa Nui). According to Diamond, the people of the island decided to use the trees for religious purposes, and in the process, denuded the island, and destroyed the ability of the island to provide enough food for the people.
To Be Continued
How do we restore nature on a global scale, and ensure that "intelligent" life, or its creations, never again become a force of destruction?
Many have tackled this subject throughout recent years, and yet the destruction continues, and continues to accelerate.
Could it be, perhaps, that the answer has yet to be articulated?
Or, could it be that it has been articulated, but has never been shared sufficiently broadly and widely?
Or, perhaps, does no answer exist at all, and we are doomed to be part of a civilization that caused a mass extinction?
The answer lies in an areas infrequently examined by those seeking solutions.
The answer lies in the very structure of our money system, which is the core of our global system of trade or exchange.
Think for a moment about how destruction of a wild forest occurs. Someone believes that they can make money, that they will be paid, in exchange for destroying the forest (by cutting down and selling the trees, blowing it up and mining the coal, etc.) Whether the law approves or disapproves, if the someone determines that they will profit more from destroying the forest, than from doing something else, then it will be destroyed. Even if illegal, the effectiveness of law enforcement, and the punishment or consequences, are figured in. In some cases, those cutting down the trees may be so desperate for money, and seeing this as the best possibility to earn money, that they will break laws, dodge law enforcement, and do whatever it takes to make the money in order to satisfy their desperation.
Exacerbating the situation are the constructs of civilization, most especially energy, technology and corporate organizations. Technology provides the means by which the destruction can be accomplished on a rapid and mass scale. The energy, primarily from non-renewable resources, enables the technology to function, and for more technology to be brought to market. Corporations are legal, artificial persons, whose one and only mission is to earn profit.
Is the money system the problem?
Or could it be that technology, abundant energy, and/or corporations are the problem?
Let's examine a situation where only money is the consideration.
Imagine you are starving, you haven't eaten for days, nor have your family members, plus your loved ones are all very sick, and dying, and all of this could be resolved with some money to buy medicine and food.
Imagine also that the only way to get money is to cut down the very last of a certain species of tree that happens to be very near to where you live.
You would have to decide between destroying the last of a nearly extinct tree or not destroying it.
This may seem like a hypothetical situation, but it is the same situation, that in one form or another, faces almost everyone in the world on a daily basis, for people just doing what they must do in order to live, and in order for their family to live.
What to choose?
The first thing to come into play would be one's own values and ethics.
Do you believe that it is more important to get the money to pay for some food and medicine for your family, which may last a short period of time?
Do you believe the most important goal of intelligent life, and our purpose for being, is to protect, enhance, and restore life?
What would prevent you from killing the tree?
Something inside your mind? Such as:
* An ethical position on the value of other species?
* An understanding of how the destruction of this tree would impact the future?
* A feeling of how your community, and perhaps even your family, would ostracize you?
* A cultural norm and expectation?
* A religious view? sin? bad Karma? persecution in the "afterlife"?
While it is possible to imagine that everyone in the world, when facing this choice, would choose not to destroy the tree, and perhaps even go so far as to protect the tree from others; imagining this does not make it realistic, or perhaps even possible, particular in the short in which we would desire to turn things around.
What features of civilization might prevent us from killing the tree?
* A fence?
* An alarm?
* A guard?
* A law with a possible fine?
* A law with possible incarceration?
* A law that might be enforced?
* A law that absolutely would be enforced?
Absolute enforcement of such laws would be difficult, if not impossible. The likelihood that such laws would be put in place, in order to restore the wilderness and nature, seems even closer to impossible.
In Jared Diamond's book Collapse, there are instances of societies that lived, or now live, sustainably. Diamond concludes that either the society had to be very small and closed, like the small island community of Tikopia; or that there had to be a very strong leader, such as during the time of feudal Japan, where most of the trees (and perhaps most of everything) was the property of the emperor.
If these are known solutions, how might these be used globally, to create a humanity of sustainability, a sustainability that will continue indefinitely?
(Author's Note: I'm trying to puzzle out the solution even as I write this.)
Other authors such as Derrick Jensen suggest that it is the existence of civilization itself that is the problem, and that since civilization is destroying nature, and threatening the lives of future generations, that it is a moral imperative to wage war against civilization, and specifically against the technology that enables civilization.
Still others point out that civilization is rapidly using up the non-renewable energy sources, and that in less than a generation, the amount of this energy (plus any other energy) will rapidly diminish. The effect will be that much technology will no longer be usable, and that the money-economic system will collapse as a result.
Diamond provides many counter examples to sustainability including the story of ancient Easter Island (Rapa Nui). According to Diamond, the people of the island decided to use the trees for religious purposes, and in the process, denuded the island, and destroyed the ability of the island to provide enough food for the people.
To Be Continued