There are many natural products that are in demand, do we have to supply all of them?
Following responses to previous lists in which I cited damage to the environment to provide a commodity or as the suppliers define it - demand - and I mean damage to the entire environment, that is damage to the soil, water, wildlife, vegetation and the human population, I find it necessary to emphasize the lack of moral / environmental / humanely exploiting any natural resource in a non-sustainable manner. That is, exploitation that does not allow regeneration, exploitation that harms the environment in which the resource is exploited, when again, an environment includes everything in it, living, inanimate, plants and people. Without philosophical and semantic entanglement demand is not a need, in most cases, even a real need can be satisfied without harming the environment.
There is a demand for plastic bags - which kill animals and harm the environment, substitutes can be used, there is a demand for tiger parts - the tigers are extinct, there is a demand for rhino horns - there are no rhinos, there is a demand for shark fins - the sharks are extinct, rhino horns like tiger parts like shark fins, fill a "need ” which stems from ignorance, education will bring a partial solution, legislation will complete.
There is a demand for furniture of understanding - the trees are disappearing, the culture of consumption dictates many troubles that are not necessary, among the "tender palates" there is a demand for caviar - a demand that causes the destruction of the sturgeons. Demand for elephant tusks has resulted in the dwindling of the African elephant population and the near disappearance of the Asian elephants. Demand for strange "pets" (exotic) - parrots, lizards, butterflies, flowers, fish, brings many species to the brink of extinction. Wild demand for gems/diamonds harms the environment and the human population and leads to the phenomenon of "blood diamonds".
And here too: demand for firewood leads to damage to palm trees, demand for wood for heating - oaks are cut down, to a list that can be continued and to the list we will only add the demand for oil and its products and the picture is clear.
In an extreme comparison I would add: there is a demand for hard drugs... does anyone think that a way should be found to satisfy this demand?
We managed to curb the demand for the furs of wild animals, we managed to stop the harm to the (white) seal pups, we even managed to curb the picking of wild flowers. Therefore, if it is possible to satisfy demand without harming the environment, without exploitation that is not sustainable, beautiful and good, if not, laws must be enacted and applied to prevent harm.
Because the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!
Dr. Assaf Rosenthal, ecologist,
Tour guide/leader in Africa and South America.
For details: Tel. 0505640309 / 077-6172298,
Email: assaf@eilatcity.co.il
10 תגובות
What about the demand for trips to Africa and South America?
According to estimates, “[p]ollution from the aviation industry is the factor with the fastest growth rate among the various causes of global warming. And in numbers: the estimate, as of today, is that flights 'contribute' about 3.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/35/ART1/069/786.html
And one last thing, or in fact a conclusion - there is no problem in satisfying the demand for Lulavs without significant ecological harm, so the comparison is simply not valid.
To assemble
If we talk about crime, your comparison is as true as the statement that using iron is morally wrong, since there are those who steal the iron from memorials to IDF martyrs and cemeteries. The problem is the thieves, not the very idea of using iron. (The iron is just an example of course)
To assemble
This is already a problem that is not related to the mitzva itself or its existence, but to crime in the country and its supervision.
From an economic point of view, it is not profitable to destroy an entire tree to get to the Lulav, since the price of a Lulav to the wholesaler is a few shekels.
The problem is lawlessness, perhaps, but it is not rooted in any way in the original mitzvah itself.
I am sure that our ancestors, for whom the maintenance of the tree was very profitable from an economic point of view, were content with cutting only the heartwood itself and not all the other branches.
On the other hand, it is impossible to get ivory from elephants without killing the entire elephant, as well as in the other examples you gave, so I object to the comparison between the two things.
To Yossi Lerner
Your mistake stems from kindness or gentleness, since it is true that cutting off one branch does not cause (much) damage, but that
They are not gentle, on their way to one loop they cut many branches along the way
And when the "operation" is repeated, the tree is damaged,
I saw how they cut down trees to get to Lulav and if it's not damage....
See the deployment of the Authority's inspectors in preparation for Sukkot to prevent
Injury, damage …
Every consumer product has a trail of entropy behind it,
Non-exotic products too. Therefore when we purchase
Any product we have to isolate well how much it is really needed
Or in other words, when will it be thrown away (in the US, most products are thrown away within 60 days)
Lovers? I'm sorry, but it's a mistake on your part, which probably stems from ignorance. The lolav is the highest branch of the palm tree, the one on which they have not yet opened. Cutting it off is like cutting off any branch from the palm tree.
From each palm tree you can get only one loaves, and no more.
Cutting one branch, once a year, does not endanger the tree and certainly does not cause its extinction.
I at least adopt the issue of plastic bags and ask all members of the household not to bring home new bags but to use baskets. Yesterday I forgot to take the basket with me, so I brought a carton because the Tel Aviv Municipality sorts and takes out large cartons before moving the trash to burial.
Everyone has to start something.
Great article!
Agree with every word, Dr. Rosenthal.
But the legislators and the suppliers share the same interest, and that is bringing the national product to the maximum. In other words, we have reached the absurd situation where the heads of state measure the national happiness and standard of living through a basket of products, through the amount of money each resident spends.
I myself was amazed to find out that the economy defines a successful year as one in which as many consumer goods as possible were sold per person.
In addition,
There is a demand for bluefin tuna which is in danger of extinction.
There is a demand (at least according to the Japanese claims) for the disappearing whales.
There is a demand for salmon and some salmon species have become extinct due to fishing.
There is a demand for livestock products, meat, dairy, fish and eggs.
The UN report on the state of ecology indicated that livestock products cause 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
Livestock farms also cause pollution of water sources, cutting down rainforests, deserts and more.
And I will repeat the rhetorical question of Dr. Asaf Rosenthal, should the demand be met?