There were and will be readers who will respond with some degree of justice that it is easier to criticize than to make positive suggestions, so for the new year I will try to raise a positive platform. We will call it a vision
22/09/2011
vision
Over the years I wrote reports and suggestions on the website, brought translations from Laz, and added my own commentary, but mostly I criticized activities that I thought were against the natural environment and therefore wrong.
There were and will be readers who will respond, with some degree of justice, that it is easier to criticize than to make positive suggestions. So for the new year I will try to raise a positive platform. We will call it a vision.
The causes of environmental destruction can be summed up in four main factors:
1 - The "culture" of consuming products that are not needed, the crazy "culture of consumption" that originated in North America but is embraced with a bear hug by everyone who is exposed to the "culture" of the Western world.
2 - Consumption and use of energy from mineral sources: coal, oil and their derivatives which cause air, sea and land pollution and global warming.
3 - The need to feed a growing human population, a need that conflicts with attempts to grow biofuel in agricultural areas.
4 - The explosion of the human population.
My proposals are based on the fact that the world is becoming a global village, which enables worldwide activity, hoping for the cooperation of all or at least most of the leaders of the countries and their residents.
According to the arrangement opened in section - 1 - the culture of consumption that has always existed but was raised to the level of a religion in North America and from there floods the entire world with the help of preachers who work for corporations, and is also spread with the help of politicians and all media and permeates every side and place in our lives is one of the sick evils of "Modern" human society. Buying vanity (brands) just because of the "name" or because we "saw it on TV" hurts everywhere and makes companies and individuals behave like a herd without direction and without restraints. Behavior that harms our ability to live according to our financial possibilities, harms our ability to be satisfied with what we have. The culture of consumption causes the human population to draw from its natural environment much more than the environment can provide, I do not understand psychology and certainly not the psychology of crowds (herd?), but it is clear that one of the ways to stop unnecessary damage to the human environment is by educating the public that there is no obligation to follow religious laws consumerism. The vision is that: instead of being the mouthpiece of corporations and advertising thousands of unnecessary products, the media will preach savings, spending that is adjusted to real and reasonable needs. An audience or residents who stop the "consumer culture" will be the first step to improving their quality of life and stopping the damage to their natural environment.
We will continue in section -2 - energy consumption. On this subject, I say that I do not share the fear of nuclear energy. Science today knows how to insure nuclear reactors against malfunctions. Let's recall that since the beginning of the use of nuclear energy, more people have been affected by "natural disasters" caused by damage to the natural environment: floods and mudslides due to deforestation, mass poisoning due to malfunctions in industrial plants, damage to water and food sources due to Sewage overflows and more environmental hazards than nuclear reactor disasters.
Science knows how to build safe reactors and handle the by-products, but nevertheless the use of nuclear energy will decrease as the use of green energy develops: solar collectors, utilization of wave energy, generation of energy from the wind, generation of electricity by water power (hydroelectric). All of this, of course, with maximum attention to preventing harm to the other residents of the area, the landscape and nature.
Also, the day is not far when hydrogen will be used as a green source of electricity and to drive machines and vehicles. In Europe there are already stations for refueling with hydrogen and there are cars whose engines emit water vapor. Until the transition to green energy, public transportation must be developed, which will save on fossil fuel and greatly reduce air pollution in the cities.
As electricity production becomes greener, the viability of moving in electric vehicles from an external source will increase, which will reduce air pollution in large population concentrations to zero. Here, of course, section 1 comes into play, as the public will have to be encouraged to prefer using green public transportation over the use of a private vehicle.
Driving vehicles and industrial plants with electricity will significantly reduce the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere. Since there is a post-biofuel trend, the direction must be to produce fuel from the by-products of crops for food and not from growing fuel instead of food: not to grow corn for fuel but to grow corn for food and to produce the fuel from the leaves and stalks. grow Jatropha in combination with food crops and not in their place. To develop oil palm plantations without destroying forests and drying up swamps and without harming people and the environment. And again, the bio-fuel will only be used in the "transitional seasons" as completely clean energy.
The vision is that the energy we need will be produced from sustainable sources.
Section - 3 - relates to the other sections in a close connection since food production requires energy (2), the inhabitants of the Western world eat much more than they should (1) and throw away large amounts. So instead of throwing away, food is "donated" to countries where constant hunger prevails. Donating food does not solve the lack, we all know the saying that it is better to give a fishing rod instead of donating fish. It is necessary to help the inhabitants of the "hungry countries" to produce food, by implementing innovative agricultural methods that will be adapted to the conditions of the land and the people: pumping water with pumps powered by electricity produced from solar collectors, drip irrigation, adapting traditional crops in combination with improved varieties, improving sheep and cattle breeds. Not attempts to introduce complicated technology and grow huge fields of a single crop (monoculture), but adapting the technology to the conditions of the area and helping small households that provide their owners with a traditional way of life.
And since the improvement of living conditions, access to modern medicine combined with primal instincts will lead to a high level of survival of newborns, the residents must be taught and educated about the controversial concept of "family planning" or in other words learning to use contraceptives. Here there is a combination with the other sections, since the vision is: developing the ability of food producers to feed the entire (emphasis on the entire) population of the world without unnecessary production and without harming the environment.
Which brings us to the last section (4).
Even if we succeed in implementing the previous three sections, the natural environment will not be able to satisfy the needs of a human population of 9 billion (soon), without depletion that will result in a complete lack of natural resources and a complete loss of the environment's ability to provide environmental services that enable the continued existence of human society. I have already written before that the development of man's technological skills precedes his natural instincts by about 50 thousand years. Because of infant mortality in primitive societies, instincts dictate multiple offspring so that their minority will survive and be a continuation of the species. The situation has changed, improved living conditions, food and hygiene and renewed medicine allow the survival of most newborns. The technological development in food production allows parents to support more and more newborns and ensure their survival. Although in the West, in societies that are not devoutly religious, the birth rate decreases, but technology is widespread throughout the world so that even primitive societies that live in poor living conditions enjoy its fruits. And so the combination of renewable technology and improved living conditions enable the survival of most newborns, which causes the explosion of the human population.
The cure for explosion exists - preventive measures. So that human society does not reach a stage where its size will cause the loss of viability, so that the explosion of the human population does not lead to a complete environmental collapse, the leaders of the global village must accept the formula that today causes many disputes of "no more than two newborns per couple".
A minority of births will immediately improve the living conditions of those who today live with difficulty. With the help of education, the human population can be convinced to use contraceptives. The combination of a low birth rate and a better ability to produce food will be a final persuasion for the need that becomes existential.
As an Israeli who lives in a place where there are those who fear the "demographic problem" it is worth remembering that with the exception of city-states such as Hong Kong or Singapore, Israel is the most densely populated in the world and therefore the "demographic problem" is even more difficult here. It is possible to evade by saying that it is possible to prevent the explosion of the population by statistical calculation, that is, there will be areas where the birth rate will be low, which will allow more births in other areas.
In my opinion, this does not justify solving a local problem at the expense of other regions. Our private "demographic problem" must be solved here. The inhabitants of the entire world must learn to overcome their 50-year-old instincts so that the human population does not explode and cause a general environmental collapse.
The vision is a human population of a size that the Earth can support without "over-attraction".
After all, the essence of my vision:
The crazy and maddening "consumer culture" will disappear and every company or individual will consume according to their real needs and not according to "what we saw in the media". Non-polluting energy will drive the wheels of production and movement, green energy - not "green".
And yet a trial in favor of the more important and more problematic resource - water. Today, there are technologies that enable the cleaning and recycling of wastewater to the level of drinking water. Instead of discharging sewage that pollutes the oceans and water sources, it is time to use water in a cycle that will prevent waste and allow drinking water and water for agriculture without harming the sources.
The world's inhabitants will produce food from agricultural land without harming the ability of the natural environment to continue providing its services.
In order to allow the continued existence of a human population without environmental collapse, the population explosion must be stopped, which brings me back to the saying: the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there should be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
Happy New Year
6 תגובות
Asaf
Most of your answers do not answer the point and most of the examples you gave do not contradict my claims above.
The flamboyant and blunt nature of your answer only strengthens my claims.
Also, I understand that you missed the main intention of my words:
I argue that in order to be able to promote the ideas you support, you must change the content of your words and the way they are said.
Why should I read your various publications if to my understanding they lack any ability to be realized in reality?
Today you are convincing the convinced. (…12 monkeys)
As far as I understand, people like me (even those who support your ultimate goals) believe that these kinds of ideas that you present every night are not feasible in reality and are based on exhausting dreams (= illusions).
The choice is in your hands: whether to continue speaking to a limited and limited audience of pre-convinced people, or to appeal to a broad educated public with an organized agenda of feasible ideas that will constitute a reasonable course of action.
to Chen
If you don't think or agree that "consumer culture" is a significant factor
In the ongoing damage to the natural environment.... Read the scripture again and then
Read the Rem…
to H.P.
To think open means to read, to understand what is read (it is rightly and properly permissible not to understand),
And if there are mistakes to argue with the scripture and not with the writer... There's a difference,
In order of things in your response:
Which is "very typical of the "green" crowd." is the desire to live in the right balance with the environment
If it is "utilitarianism"... Niha
Cultures and societies learned "how and how to behave" or changed patterns out of necessity,
Look at the low birth rate in the western world!
"Convincing people not to eat tuna" ("with dolphins") is easy simply because.... No tuna!
The fight against illegal poachers (gorillas and other animals) depends directly on the ability to produce food
of the people of Africa and I wrote about this before (as someone who criticizes me you should have known!).
I wrote both here above and in the past against growing "fuel" instead of food (as someone who criticizes me, you should have known!).
The technology makes it possible and a correct economic calculation shows the feasibility of "preserving the diversity of the biosphere",
(As someone who criticizes me, you should have known!).
If you haven't understood by now, then again, you should go back and read and maybe you will understand that humans are part of the biosphere
That's why "brilliant things" like "humans will not need the biosphere as a resource", are at best... holes !
(As someone who criticizes me, you should have known!).
If you had read and bothered to try and understand what you read, you would know that I was against the removal of the fish farm
from the Gulf of Eilat, since I thought that the environmental hazards could be neutralized,
She also knew what an environmental risk there is in "establishing huge fish farms in the ocean"!
As for your "prediction", again (as someone criticizing me you should have known!) self-destruction
It is a special feature of the human race because of the difference of 50000 years between the natural instincts
For the technological development, I think (and like me many "greens") that the way is to prevent
Your "prediction" is by education!
As a believer, it was difficult for me to continue after the first section. come on. What is the connection between brand consumption and environmental damage? Do diesel jeans sold for $400 harm the environment more than "normal" pants?
And all the demagoguery on the dime about the "corporations" and the "politicians" who try to drain our brains reminds me mainly of episodes of pinky and the brain.
But I tried to continue
In your second point you claim that nuclear plants are "okay" because in other ways people are harmed as well (or more). Not that I am against nuclear plants - the opposite is true. But your argument is completely flawed. Like slapping someone in the face and telling them it doesn't hurt, because some people get kicked too.
In short - a green vision is fine - but you will have to formulate it in terms that will not only speak to the convinced.
Asaf,
In my understanding, the concept you are looking at in the article is a blatant example of investing effort in a direction that does not help at all and actually hinders reaching the final goal you are aiming for.
Unfortunately, this approach characterizes most of your publications and is very typical of the "green" audience.
I assume that your ultimate goal is to reach a human culture which is based on utilitarianism (from Stuart Mill's sermon - human happiness) and which sustains and preserves as much as possible the diversity of the Earth's biosphere.
If so, then I too personally support this ultimate goal.
However, in my understanding, you and the other extreme "greens" only cause damage and interference in reaching the goal.
I have previously called your suggestions delusional because they are based on the delusion that entire cultures can be "re-taught" how and how to behave. Such a thing never succeeded in any pleasant way. To the best of my knowledge, there is no example in human history of such a situation, of introducing a significant cultural change through non-violent persuasion that is contrary to the immediate interests of those populations. They barely managed to convince people not to eat tuna with dolphins, and that's only after decades of the "Flipper" TV series.
To this day, they have hardly succeeded in stopping the hunting of gorillas and chimpanzees that takes place in Africa, and this is when every average person feels an affinity for these animals. The reason is that these animals are a resource for the human population that lives in their environment and no one would start a military operation just for that purpose.
Therefore, in your words you are actually calling for the brainwashing and cultural conversion of populations of billions of people, in some aggressive way.
In the twentieth century there were two such experiments: fascism and socialism. Both brought ruin and destruction and the murder of tens of millions of people.
Of course, it is obligatory to mention the campaign of the "greens" on the biofuel crops. We see the devastating and deadly results for humans (hunger: biofuel instead of food) of this campaign today. It should be noted that no population education was carried out in biofuel crops. Just convince governments and landowners that oil can be grown on their land. To the best of my understanding, biofuel is a disaster in the making that originates precisely from the kind of delusional notions that you and your ilk continue to present.
The fact that many of the more blatant green claims are unfounded in reality or have even been proven to be extremely harmful if realized, means that anyone who cares about the preservation of the diversity of the biosphere is seen as a delusional opponent of technological-economic progress. (hysterical tree hugger). In doing so, damage was caused to the very goal that those greens claim to have come to promote.
As far as I understand, the only method to prevent the destruction of the Earth's biosphere is by bringing it to a situation where humans will not need the biosphere as a resource that they will have to use.
This can only be achieved by scientific progress as fast as possible in the directions of food and energy production in a way that harms the biosphere as little as possible.
Until we get there, we need to make considerations of profit versus damage.
This is the reason why I understood that "greens" like you support the establishment of huge fish farms in the ocean or genetically modified agricultural crops with a restriction on spreading to the environment (sterile seeds).
Oh... and regarding the population explosion, I understand that there is no need to worry (at least not in the direction you presented).
The reason for this is simple - biological terrorism in Europe against Islam.
My personal prediction is that in the next 15 years diseases will appear which will cause widespread mortality among the heavenly peoples. Specifically, it will be about genetically directed viruses.
Along the way it is likely that they will also wipe out most of Africa's population.
The same for India. (something the Chinese will surely release)
The reason is very simple: such biological terrorism can be produced today on the table in quite a few academic or commercial laboratories. Yes, people are not nice. There are no shortage of examples.
Yeah, it's going to be interesting. ;~)
An Ethiopian told me that he lost four of his brothers on the journey to Israel,
I understood why, despite the terrible poverty and hardship, his mother and father continued to have children
Yes! Enough of artificial demand! Enough of the violence! Enough to destroy the ball!