History shows that population control, like so many other things, is not amenable to sanctions or incentives and this form of approach makes the all too common mistake of addressing the symptoms rather than the causes. The root of a particular problem is not always easy to determine but I am ever more convinced that supporting and resourcing communities to manage their local economies and basic needs is the best starting point. Local control of food, shelter, health, education and power - albeit in a wider state framework - feels like the best way for people to make their own decisions, whether its about their role in their community or having children. Stability, education and access to birth control is very likely to reduce birth rates in Africa and elsewhere.
I very much believe that we will struggle to manage global resources without population decline. In more developed nations this is happening currently and arguably because of the general anxiety about the future. Should things stabilise, however, in the future and people feel more safe will birth rates increase again?
This proposal advocates for a significant paradigm change in how we perceive, understand, and manage the roots of global warming. This shift is essentially moving away from the present general basic beliefs of what is considered Sovereignty in our days as “the supreme power or authority of each country within their official boundaries admitted as such by the rest of the countries of the world”.
We find very damaging the claim “WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES”. Why?, because it allows countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they wish, whatever they choose, as long as it is “within their official boundaries“ and regardless of the damage it can cause to the environment or nearby countries. It is a claim universally accepted in Constitutions of the world. However, THAT DIVISION AND UNLIMITED POWER IS WRONG. The environment is a shared global resource that transcends countries’ political boundaries. That is why we introduce and propose ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning notion of Sovereignty as far as the environment is concerned. THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE POLITICALLY PARCELED OR DIVIDED, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONGST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. We find that the present division of the environment amongst countries of the world is or could well be the major cause of global warming.
However, countries do not accept that “the environment is a shared global resource that transcends national boundaries”. On the contrary, countries take for granted that, within its borders, the environment is a rightfully earned and inherited property and therefore countries have an absolute free hand to do environmentally whatever they wish within those borders, and that is what countries call “SOVEREIGNTY”. It is Sovereignty all right, but it is BAD SOVEREIGNTY.
In sum….
1) Countries policies cannot be a dominant factor reigning above the environment. THE ENVIRONMENT is beyond not only of what countries presently call SOVEREIGNTY but also above their Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a “Power above Powers”.
2) Political authoritarianism and lack of or improper enforcement of pro-environment laws is a very damaging factor that impacts very negatively the environment.
3) Worldwide environmental degradation will continue until the present concept of SOVEREIGNTY is changed and the world accepts that there are only two kinds of sovereignty in its place: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY or BAD SOVEREIGNTY. The first respects the environment as a power above all powers. The second, does not.
What does all this mean?
1) Human presence anywhere in the world must not be indifferent to the environment. When it is in a positive way, we call it GOOD SOVEREIGNTY. If it is in a negative way, we call it BAD SOVEREIGNTY
2) Like it or not, the environment has been and will be considered always the backbone of any country, city or community and as such should be prioritized and cared for accordingly.
3) Caring for the environment is not only an obligation but also an art.
4) It’s not difficult for all countries to start seriously caring for the environment. There are many good ideas and proposals around, for example, ¿why do we need so many military academies in the world? We can start by abolishing military academies in 90% of the countries of the world as they are useless in present day warfare. THEY CAN BE REPLACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL UNIVERSITIES. A police force in cities will always be necessary just as a force to look after the countries’ borders.
5) “Watch Dog” policy for automatic applicable pre-stablished penalties (i.e., a country’s flagship planes will not be allowed to land in a foreign country until full environmental reparations are satisfied, including fines).
6) Independent chapters in all countries, schools, universities, regions, communities of the world can be started following general guidelines set forward here. Eventually they will become a common universal force which will come together and set worldwide standards for GOOD SOVEREINTY caring for the environment, proposing rules and regulations which will eventually become common enforceable laws local or worldwide. The sky is the limit. Is it a bad idea to have a UNITED NATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or similar in Costa Rica or in Southern Asia?
In sum, what do we propose?
Eradicate BAD SOVEREIGNTY from the world and replace it with GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental health with global well-being is more than thought-provoking argument. Yes, quite easy to say, but not impossible to achieve. It can be done, and must be done, the sooner the better. Constitutions of all countries must therefore be changed accordingly. It will take time and resources, lots of pushing and pulling, but we don’t see any other way out if we want a world for our and future generations. Big Money will oppose it of course, just as political interests and arrogance, ignorance, fear, and indifference, but facts are facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY IS NOT FOREVER.
(To reinforce the presentation and being a published novelist (in Spanish), a screen play idea came to my mind. Is innovative and has the potential to reach a wider audience, especially when considering the power of storytelling in raising awareness and inspiring action. As a writer, I know that using storytelling to convey complex concepts can be incredibly effective, especially when addressing issues as urgent, complex, and manifold as environmental conservation. That screen play is finished. Hopefully, it’s good enough so that it may catch a producer’s eye or Leonardo Di Capri’s interest as the official UN representative for the environment, and we can take it to the screen for worldwide view, understanding, and start our environmental groups worldwide. This is my way of better reaching out directly and I do hope I will find guides and followers in this journey).
A train load of 10 gentle miss direction narrative. Summertree has nothing to do with the complete stoppage of extracting fossil fuels. That's just something we should all do because it's the right fucking thing to do my God
We're headed for a complete extinction event here. We're already in the middle of it. And right now there are at least 6.5 billion people that are completely passed the sustainable point of this planet wide Eco biosphere habitat. All facilitated by one dynamic. Extraction and use of fossil fuels. Without it we would not have had the ability to expand seven years worth of resources in a year. You really don't have a valid reply here just nebulous ethereal drivel. The one assertion you make concerning population is a complete impossibility.
Hudson maybe you'd like to be more specific instead of sounding like you're at the Mall complaining about how you think the sweatshop clothing is not up to snuff for you today. hahaha. Better shopping experience next to for you - the customer is always correct!
In the Pennsylvania Dutch region, some people make a dish called "bot boi" (or "bottboi") by Pennsylvania German-speaking natives. Pennsylvania Dutch pot pie is not actually a pot pie. Rather, it is a stew without a crust.
This proposal advocates for a significant paradigm change in how we perceive, understand, and manage the roots of global warming. This shift is essentially moving away from the present general basic beliefs of what is considered Sovereignty in our days as “the supreme power or authority of each country within their official boundaries admitted as such by the rest of the countries of the world”.
We find very damaging the claim “WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES”. Why?, because it allows countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they wish, whatever they choose, as long as it is “within their official boundaries“ and regardless of the damage it can cause to the environment or nearby countries. It is a claim universally accepted in Constitutions of the world. However, THAT DIVISION AND UNLIMITED POWER IS WRONG. The environment is a shared global resource that transcends countries’ political boundaries. That is why we introduce and propose ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning notion of Sovereignty as far as the environment is concerned. THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE POLITICALLY PARCELED OR DIVIDED, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONGST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. We find that the present division of the environment amongst countries of the world is or could well be the major cause of global warming.
However, countries do not accept that “the environment is a shared global resource that transcends national boundaries”. On the contrary, countries take for granted that, within its borders, the environment is a rightfully earned and inherited property and therefore countries have an absolute free hand to do environmentally whatever they wish within those borders, and that is what countries call “SOVEREIGNTY”. It is Sovereignty all right, but it is BAD SOVEREIGNTY.
In sum….
1) Countries policies cannot be a dominant factor reigning above the environment. THE ENVIRONMENT is beyond not only of what countries presently call SOVEREIGNTY but also above their Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a “Power above Powers”.
2) Political authoritarianism and lack of or improper enforcement of pro-environment laws is a very damaging factor that impacts very negatively the environment.
3) Worldwide environmental degradation will continue until the present concept of SOVEREIGNTY is changed and the world accepts that there are only two kinds of sovereignty in its place: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY or BAD SOVEREIGNTY. The first respects the environment as a power above all powers. The second, does not.
What does all this mean?
1) Human presence anywhere in the world must not be indifferent to the environment. When it is in a positive way, we call it GOOD SOVEREIGNTY. If it is in a negative way, we call it BAD SOVEREIGNTY
2) Like it or not, the environment has been and will be considered always the backbone of any country, city or community and as such should be prioritized and cared for accordingly.
3) Caring for the environment is not only an obligation but also an art.
4) It’s not difficult for all countries to start seriously caring for the environment. There are many good ideas and proposals around, for example, ¿why do we need so many military academies in the world? We can start by abolishing military academies in 90% of the countries of the world as they are useless in present day warfare. THEY CAN BE REPLACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL UNIVERSITIES. A police force in cities will always be necessary just as a force to look after the countries’ borders.
5) “Watch Dog” policy for automatic applicable pre-stablished penalties (i.e., a country’s flagship planes will not be allowed to land in a foreign country until full environmental reparations are satisfied, including fines).
6) Independent chapters in all countries, schools, universities, regions, communities of the world can be started following general guidelines set forward here. Eventually they will become a common universal force which will come together and set worldwide standards for GOOD SOVEREINTY caring for the environment, proposing rules and regulations which will eventually become common enforceable laws local or worldwide. The sky is the limit. Is it a bad idea to have a UNITED NATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or similar in Costa Rica or in Southern Asia?
In sum, what do we propose?
Eradicate BAD SOVEREIGNTY from the world and replace it with GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental health with global well-being is more than thought-provoking argument. Yes, quite easy to say, but not impossible to achieve. It can be done, and must be done, the sooner the better. Constitutions of all countries must therefore be changed accordingly. It will take time and resources, lots of pushing and pulling, but we don’t see any other way out if we want a world for our and future generations. Big Money will oppose it of course, just as political interests and arrogance, ignorance, fear, and indifference, but facts are facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY IS NOT FOREVER.
(To reinforce the presentation and being a published novelist (in Spanish), a screen play idea came to my mind. Is innovative and has the potential to reach a wider audience, especially when considering the power of storytelling in raising awareness and inspiring action. As a writer, I know that using storytelling to convey complex concepts can be incredibly effective, especially when addressing issues as urgent, complex, and manifold as environmental conservation. That screen play is finished. Hopefully, it’s good enough so that it may catch a producer’s eye or Leonardo Di Capri’s interest as the official UN representative for the environment, and we can take it to the screen for worldwide view, understanding, and start our environmental groups worldwide. This is my way of better reaching out directly and I do hope I will find guides and followers in this journey).
One-size-fits-all solutions are exactly what we do not need, because they are not equally suited for all places. In practice they are often devastating to nations where they are inappropriate for local conditions and circumstances, which vary widely.
When external parties or individuals (often under the banner of climate/environmental activism) claim to want to "preserve" the environments of other countries, it's usually got much more to do with their interest in the natural resources in those countries than the environment per se. It concerns them, apparently, that countries can use their own resources to develop themselves, while those very resources could rather be exported to them instead ...
For your convenience, Rachel, my views on present-day environmentalism (and climate activism) - from my latest essay:
EXTRACT:
"Much of the literature concerning sustainable development, the circular economy, and JETs heavily emphasises phrases related to climate care, environmental protection, and social equity. However, despite these stated objectives, real-world outcomes often fall short, potentially contributing to the infrequent analysis of case studies by environmentalists. This lack of interest raises several questions about environmentalism.
Nowadays, it is commonplace to see environmentalists and climate activists fervently advocating for new products and services hailed as sustainable solutions. However, while mainstream activists frequently lead protests against fossil fuels, there is a noticeable lack of protests addressing the environmental destruction zones caused by the energy transition from fossil fuel extraction to the extraction of various rare-earth minerals and other minerals. Moreover, the impact on local communities in many countries and regions appears to be of little concern.
It seems that grassroots environmentalism has been displaced and overtaken by pseudo- environmentalism. However, in truth, the modern environmental movement has always been used as a platform to advance political, social, and commercial interests that are not directly linked to the environment. By invoking environmental concerns, assertions of morality and ethics are made to advocate for the phasing out of fossil fuels. However, authentic environmentalism would require questioning the damaging effects of implementing renewable energy solutions for the energy transition.
It is noteworthy that in the face of alternative facts, environmentalists generally tend to stick to their guns, suggesting that environmentalism is a dogma-driven phenomenon, akin to a secular religion. This aspect was recognised by depth psychologists decades ago." - JJM
This proposal advocates for a significant paradigm change in how we perceive, understand, and manage the roots of global warming. This shift is essentially moving away from the present general basic beliefs of what is considered Sovereignty in our days as “the supreme power or authority of each country within their official boundaries admitted as such by the rest of the countries of the world”.
We find very damaging the claim “WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES”. Why?, because it allows countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they wish, whatever they choose, as long as it is “within their official boundaries“ and regardless of the damage it can cause to the environment or nearby countries. It is a claim universally accepted in Constitutions of the world. However, THAT DIVISION AND UNLIMITED POWER IS WRONG. The environment is a shared global resource that transcends countries’ political boundaries. That is why we introduce and propose ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning notion of Sovereignty as far as the environment is concerned. THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE POLITICALLY PARCELED OR DIVIDED, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONGST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. We find that the present division of the environment amongst countries of the world is or could well be the major cause of global warming.
However, countries do not accept that “the environment is a shared global resource that transcends national boundaries”. On the contrary, countries take for granted that, within its borders, the environment is a rightfully earned and inherited property and therefore countries have an absolute free hand to do environmentally whatever they wish within those borders, and that is what countries call “SOVEREIGNTY”. It is Sovereignty all right, but it is BAD SOVEREIGNTY.
In sum….
1) Countries policies cannot be a dominant factor reigning above the environment. THE ENVIRONMENT is beyond not only of what countries presently call SOVEREIGNTY but also above their Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a “Power above Powers”.
2) Political authoritarianism and lack of or improper enforcement of pro-environment laws is a very damaging factor that impacts very negatively the environment.
3) Worldwide environmental degradation will continue until the present concept of SOVEREIGNTY is changed and the world accepts that there are only two kinds of sovereignty in its place: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY or BAD SOVEREIGNTY. The first respects the environment as a power above all powers. The second, does not.
What does all this mean?
1) Human presence anywhere in the world must not be indifferent to the environment. When it is in a positive way, we call it GOOD SOVEREIGNTY. If it is in a negative way, we call it BAD SOVEREIGNTY
2) Like it or not, the environment has been and will be considered always the backbone of any country, city or community and as such should be prioritized and cared for accordingly.
3) Caring for the environment is not only an obligation but also an art.
4) It’s not difficult for all countries to start seriously caring for the environment. There are many good ideas and proposals around, for example, ¿why do we need so many military academies in the world? We can start by abolishing military academies in 90% of the countries of the world as they are useless in present day warfare. THEY CAN BE REPLACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL UNIVERSITIES. A police force in cities will always be necessary just as a force to look after the countries’ borders.
5) “Watch Dog” policy for automatic applicable pre-stablished penalties (i.e., a country’s flagship planes will not be allowed to land in a foreign country until full environmental reparations are satisfied, including fines).
6) Independent chapters in all countries, schools, universities, regions, communities of the world can be started following general guidelines set forward here. Eventually they will become a common universal force which will come together and set worldwide standards for GOOD SOVEREINTY caring for the environment, proposing rules and regulations which will eventually become common enforceable laws local or worldwide. The sky is the limit. Is it a bad idea to have a UNITED NATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or similar in Costa Rica or in Southern Asia?
In sum, what do we propose?
Eradicate BAD SOVEREIGNTY from the world and replace it with GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental health with global well-being is more than thought-provoking argument. Yes, quite easy to say, but not impossible to achieve. It can be done, and must be done, the sooner the better. Constitutions of all countries must therefore be changed accordingly. It will take time and resources, lots of pushing and pulling, but we don’t see any other way out if we want a world for our and future generations. Big Money will oppose it of course, just as political interests and arrogance, ignorance, fear, and indifference, but facts are facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY IS NOT FOREVER.
(To reinforce the presentation and being a published novelist (in Spanish), a screen play idea came to my mind. Is innovative and has the potential to reach a wider audience, especially when considering the power of storytelling in raising awareness and inspiring action. As a writer, I know that using storytelling to convey complex concepts can be incredibly effective, especially when addressing issues as urgent, complex, and manifold as environmental conservation. That screen play is finished. Hopefully, it’s good enough so that it may catch a producer’s eye or Leonardo Di Capri’s interest as the official UN representative for the environment, and we can take it to the screen for worldwide view, understanding, and start our environmental groups worldwide. This is my way of better reaching out directly and I do hope I will find guides and followers in this journey).
There is not one environment, one population, or one climate, there are MANY of all of them. It's a fundamental flaw in thinking to claim that "the environment" is a singular concept - and the same goes for "the climate", etc. Your climate in the northern part of South America is not my climate in the southern region of Africa. Our environments are different and so are our populations and many other things. Any claims to universal solutions are therefore false from the outset, because they are based in the principle of everywhere is the same. It is exactly because everywhere is different that we need sovereignty so that each nation can resolve their own crises appropriately within their own contexts, as discussed in "A Crisis in Thinking and the Way Out" :
Some of us in the southern hemisphere are actually paying attention to discussions related to solutions being discussed on our behalf for ostensible global crises that are essentially localised issues that have been elevated to global status. So, I'd like to unpack a segment of your comments in this podcast from the following excerpt:
@ 15:35
"The mutual benefit of reparations is that ensuring that the continent of Africa does not have to go through an industrial revolution in order to develop or give certain social or political resources that it may want to give to its different populations. That is critical. We need to bypass the industrial revolution and go straight to a kind of green justice transition de-growth global model. We cannot afford to have the same emissions up in the air as started 200 years ago by Western Europe." - RD
1. Climate reparations: This is a hugely questionable concept. First of all, climate issues are local and regional, not global. The entire climate change narrative is based on selective science - are you part of the "science is settled" crowd?. So, the foundation for the premise of climate reparations is flawed from the outset, and to what end? For Africa to stop developing itself with its own resources while still allowing those resources to be exported to already highly developed first world nations? (Which used Africa's resources in the first place for their development). With all respect I think you need to take a few moments and reflect upon just how imperialistic that sounds to people in the Global South.
2. Bypassing the industrial revolution: This is impossible because the (so-called) "green transition" is itself a new industrial revolution. Extraction is just shifting from fossil fuels to the minerals required for the production of renewable technologies. The only question is which one is, or will, be worse. My view is the latter will be. "Degrowth", although a nice idea, is simply unrealistic because no nation is going to voluntarily stop developing themselves - that would be going against human nature itself. I have written about that here:
3. As for "green justice" why not investigate how "just" the (so-called) Just Energy Transition is going in South Africa? It seems environmentalists are steering a very wide berth around the topic. I wonder why that would that be? See the segment "A Missing Case Study" for my comprehensive thoughts on the issue in my latest essay:
"... to combat this really global problem we have." - RD
We've got a global problem alright and it's not what environmentalists and climate activists make it out to be. In summary it is this - the biggest crisis the world is facing is a crisis in thinking:
"The continual creation of crises through global thinking leads to centralised and collectivised conceptual frameworks that, upon objective analyses, are mostly chimeras and mirages. Thinking globally all the time can result in muddled thinking, contributing to what could be considered a crisis in thinking. Hence, global thinking is part and parcel of a global crisis in thinking." - JJM.
This proposal advocates for a significant paradigm change in how we perceive, understand, and manage the roots of global warming. This shift is essentially moving away from the present general basic beliefs of what is considered Sovereignty in our days as “the supreme power or authority of each country within their official boundaries admitted as such by the rest of the countries of the world”.
We find very damaging the claim “WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES”. Why?, because it allows countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they wish, whatever they choose, as long as it is “within their official boundaries“ and regardless of the damage it can cause to the environment or nearby countries. It is a claim universally accepted in Constitutions of the world. However, THAT DIVISION AND UNLIMITED POWER IS WRONG. The environment is a shared global resource that transcends countries’ political boundaries. That is why we introduce and propose ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning notion of Sovereignty as far as the environment is concerned. THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE POLITICALLY PARCELED OR DIVIDED, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONGST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. We find that the present division of the environment amongst countries of the world is or could well be the major cause of global warming.
However, countries do not accept that “the environment is a shared global resource that transcends national boundaries”. On the contrary, countries take for granted that, within its borders, the environment is a rightfully earned and inherited property and therefore countries have an absolute free hand to do environmentally whatever they wish within those borders, and that is what countries call “SOVEREIGNTY”. It is Sovereignty all right, but it is BAD SOVEREIGNTY.
In sum….
1) Countries policies cannot be a dominant factor reigning above the environment. THE ENVIRONMENT is beyond not only of what countries presently call SOVEREIGNTY but also above their Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a “Power above Powers”.
2) Political authoritarianism and lack of or improper enforcement of pro-environment laws is a very damaging factor that impacts very negatively the environment.
3) Worldwide environmental degradation will continue until the present concept of SOVEREIGNTY is changed and the world accepts that there are only two kinds of sovereignty in its place: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY or BAD SOVEREIGNTY. The first respects the environment as a power above all powers. The second, does not.
What does all this mean?
1) Human presence anywhere in the world must not be indifferent to the environment. When it is in a positive way, we call it GOOD SOVEREIGNTY. If it is in a negative way, we call it BAD SOVEREIGNTY
2) Like it or not, the environment has been and will be considered always the backbone of any country, city or community and as such should be prioritized and cared for accordingly.
3) Caring for the environment is not only an obligation but also an art.
4) It’s not difficult for all countries to start seriously caring for the environment. There are many good ideas and proposals around, for example, ¿why do we need so many military academies in the world? We can start by abolishing military academies in 90% of the countries of the world as they are useless in present day warfare. THEY CAN BE REPLACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL UNIVERSITIES. A police force in cities will always be necessary just as a force to look after the countries’ borders.
5) “Watch Dog” policy for automatic applicable pre-stablished penalties (i.e., a country’s flagship planes will not be allowed to land in a foreign country until full environmental reparations are satisfied, including fines).
6) Independent chapters in all countries, schools, universities, regions, communities of the world can be started following general guidelines set forward here. Eventually they will become a common universal force which will come together and set worldwide standards for GOOD SOVEREINTY caring for the environment, proposing rules and regulations which will eventually become common enforceable laws local or worldwide. The sky is the limit. Is it a bad idea to have a UNITED NATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or similar in Costa Rica or in Southern Asia?
In sum, what do we propose?
Eradicate BAD SOVEREIGNTY from the world and replace it with GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental health with global well-being is more than thought-provoking argument. Yes, quite easy to say, but not impossible to achieve. It can be done, and must be done, the sooner the better. Constitutions of all countries must therefore be changed accordingly. It will take time and resources, lots of pushing and pulling, but we don’t see any other way out if we want a world for our and future generations. Big Money will oppose it of course, just as political interests and arrogance, ignorance, fear, and indifference, but facts are facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY IS NOT FOREVER.
(To reinforce the presentation and being a published novelist (in Spanish), a screen play idea came to my mind. Is innovative and has the potential to reach a wider audience, especially when considering the power of storytelling in raising awareness and inspiring action. As a writer, I know that using storytelling to convey complex concepts can be incredibly effective, especially when addressing issues as urgent, complex, and manifold as environmental conservation. That screen play is finished. Hopefully, it’s good enough so that it may catch a producer’s eye or Leonardo Di Capri’s interest as the official UN representative for the environment, and we can take it to the screen for worldwide view, understanding, and start our environmental groups worldwide. This is my way of better reaching out directly and I do hope I will find guides and followers in this journey).
Hi Rachel: In support of your PetroRape book, I just posted this reply to Professor Michael Grosso's latest blogpost on his "Consciousness Unbound" blog. He posted on global warming. I wrote my master's thesis on "radical ecology" and "sound-current nondualism" with music theory as a philosophy of science. My advisors included a music professor and a philosophy of religion - hermeneutics professor (actually a Jesuit theologian). They really didn't understand me and actually most of my master's degree was self-directed activist policy work. The University president even emailed me asking me not to go on "unlimited hunger strike" since I had "accomplished enough" already. hahaha.
So I finished my master's degree by doing intensive qigong meditation training to test out my music theory hypothesis - via the African Studies department. This led me to fasting for a week on just a half glass of water (the whole time not each day). This is called "bigu" in qigong traditional Chinese medicine meditation but this "bigu" is actually alchemy and it's also found in the South Indian Dravidian yoga tradition. I recently corresponded with a youtuber who had made the connection between sun-gazing and fasting and the creation of "ambrosia" in the alchemy tradition of South India. He was definitely interested in the bigu research conference held by professor Rustum Roy, a material chemistry researcher from India.
So one thing I discovered is that when I broke my fast salt tasted like poison! I knew I was in trouble then since salt is everywhere in our modern diet. But if you study our original human culture - DNA science now proves the "pygmies" split from the San Bushmen 225,000 years ago - and they did not eat salt traditionally (well maybe sometimes).
Similarly I am very sensitive to sugar - it creates an internal tingling sensation and causes anaerobic bacteria to go up the front of my body into my skull! hahahaha. Of course sugar is everywhere in the modern diet also - so I order organic ginger powder from India. I eat tons of ginger - in milk and lots in orange juice, etc.
In fact the famous yogi Sri Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas, author of "This House is on Fire" - or a memoir about him - in his travels of the U.S. - he could never find food pure enough for his body requirements!
As you know from your research on the Man Who Could Fly, Saint Joseph de Copertino ate mainly bitter greens as his main food source and he had what is called a "modified bigu" diet. The teacher I trained with also levitated up nine feet while he was in full lotus meditation - but he did this right after he finished a 28 day nonstop cave meditation in full lotus (around 1995).
So our modern left-brain dominant mentality has lost connection with our body emotional connection to diet on a subconscious level. In traditional Chinese medicine if the liver is blocked this causes anger - so that explains why a meat and alcohol diet causes so much rage in say German culture or Europe Yamnaya culture (that conquered around 2000-3000 BCE). Salt causes too much thinking - and sugar also - with the kidney and pancreas/spleen getting blocked just as too much caffeine causes fear. When the lungs are damaged from smoking this causes depression but Western medicine has yet to make this connection that I know of - between lung health and depression!!
I also learned that ghosts are real and the qigong master I trained with - Chunyi Lin - he even heals ghosts! But the Eastern guru tradition is part of the Royal tantric tradition of the Bronze age - and thus also relies on the spiritual ego of the patriarchy. So alchemy relies on storing up the energy with lust as "evil fire" of the heart. Of course Saint Joseph de Copertino, as your research describes, also had women chasing after him and he focused on the Mother of God for his worship - love as compassion instead of lust.
In my experience in psychic tantric healing there is a direct connection from female lust to love but as a male - the ejaculation spikes the cortisol stress as an addictive positive feedback escalation of violence. Meaning lust is dopamine bliss but with the sympathetic nervous system spike of ejaculation then cortisol stress follows - and this pattern makes the stress worse and worse. This is why every male in our original human culture was required to train in female bliss based on the right side vagus nerve (what later became known as tantra). The problem in psychic tantra is that the energy is still stuck in what Mahayana Buddhism calls the "realm of form." In Daoist yoga this is called "yin qi" as psychic energy in contrast to "yuan qi" as what is called Shakti in Indian yoga.
So what I'm describing now is a realm of reality that modern people know nothing about since it is experienced through the pineal gland and heart and small intestines - the central channel - as it interacts holographically with what science calls "protoconsciousness" as an "active information" from the future based on noncommutativity or asymmetric time-frequency (the truth of nonwestern music).
So our ecological crisis is based on a deep left-brain bias that created patriarchal religion as a closed symmetric logic (I am that I am) for God as Brahman (Abraham) Bull plow (rape) of Nature. This "Western civilization" spread disease through intensive animal domestication - around the world - with genocidal war - as detailed in Professor Alfred Crosby's book "Ecological Imperialism" - even Africa took up the "Hoe" as iron age Bantu farming based on polygamy of the females.
We got cut off from our original human culture that lived in the forest and relied on listening as our dominant perception used by the males in hunting. With a pastoral (Eden) domestication of animals and subsequent plow monocultural farming culture as 'civilization" - we created what Professor David F. Noble called "The Promised Land" - in his final book "Beyond the Promised Land" - a follow up to his classic "The Religion of Technology" (1996).
So I agree with you that a focus on the self is key and yet it is also quite the challenge.
Hudson maybe you'd like to be more specific instead of sounding like you're at the Mall complaining about how you think the sweatshop clothing is not up to snuff for you today. hahaha. Better shopping experience next to for you - the customer is always correct!
This proposal advocates for a significant paradigm change in how we perceive, understand, and manage the roots of global warming. This shift is essentially moving away from the present general basic beliefs of what is considered Sovereignty in our days as “the supreme power or authority of each country within their official boundaries admitted as such by the rest of the countries of the world”.
We find very damaging the claim “WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES”. Why?, because it allows countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they wish, whatever they choose, as long as it is “within their official boundaries“ and regardless of the damage it can cause to the environment or nearby countries. It is a claim universally accepted in Constitutions of the world. However, THAT DIVISION AND UNLIMITED POWER IS WRONG. The environment is a shared global resource that transcends countries’ political boundaries. That is why we introduce and propose ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning notion of Sovereignty as far as the environment is concerned. THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE POLITICALLY PARCELED OR DIVIDED, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONGST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. We find that the present division of the environment amongst countries of the world is or could well be the major cause of global warming.
However, countries do not accept that “the environment is a shared global resource that transcends national boundaries”. On the contrary, countries take for granted that, within its borders, the environment is a rightfully earned and inherited property and therefore countries have an absolute free hand to do environmentally whatever they wish within those borders, and that is what countries call “SOVEREIGNTY”. It is Sovereignty all right, but it is BAD SOVEREIGNTY.
In sum….
1) Countries policies cannot be a dominant factor reigning above the environment. THE ENVIRONMENT is beyond not only of what countries presently call SOVEREIGNTY but also above their Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a “Power above Powers”.
2) Political authoritarianism and lack of or improper enforcement of pro-environment laws is a very damaging factor that impacts very negatively the environment.
3) Worldwide environmental degradation will continue until the present concept of SOVEREIGNTY is changed and the world accepts that there are only two kinds of sovereignty in its place: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY or BAD SOVEREIGNTY. The first respects the environment as a power above all powers. The second, does not.
What does all this mean?
1) Human presence anywhere in the world must not be indifferent to the environment. When it is in a positive way, we call it GOOD SOVEREIGNTY. If it is in a negative way, we call it BAD SOVEREIGNTY
2) Like it or not, the environment has been and will be considered always the backbone of any country, city or community and as such should be prioritized and cared for accordingly.
3) Caring for the environment is not only an obligation but also an art.
4) It’s not difficult for all countries to start seriously caring for the environment. There are many good ideas and proposals around, for example, ¿why do we need so many military academies in the world? We can start by abolishing military academies in 90% of the countries of the world as they are useless in present day warfare. THEY CAN BE REPLACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL UNIVERSITIES. A police force in cities will always be necessary just as a force to look after the countries’ borders.
5) “Watch Dog” policy for automatic applicable pre-stablished penalties (i.e., a country’s flagship planes will not be allowed to land in a foreign country until full environmental reparations are satisfied, including fines).
6) Independent chapters in all countries, schools, universities, regions, communities of the world can be started following general guidelines set forward here. Eventually they will become a common universal force which will come together and set worldwide standards for GOOD SOVEREINTY caring for the environment, proposing rules and regulations which will eventually become common enforceable laws local or worldwide. The sky is the limit. Is it a bad idea to have a UNITED NATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or similar in Costa Rica or in Southern Asia?
In sum, what do we propose?
Eradicate BAD SOVEREIGNTY from the world and replace it with GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental health with global well-being is more than thought-provoking argument. Yes, quite easy to say, but not impossible to achieve. It can be done, and must be done, the sooner the better. Constitutions of all countries must therefore be changed accordingly. It will take time and resources, lots of pushing and pulling, but we don’t see any other way out if we want a world for our and future generations. Big Money will oppose it of course, just as political interests and arrogance, ignorance, fear, and indifference, but facts are facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY IS NOT FOREVER.
(To reinforce the presentation and being a published novelist (in Spanish), a screen play idea came to my mind. Is innovative and has the potential to reach a wider audience, especially when considering the power of storytelling in raising awareness and inspiring action. As a writer, I know that using storytelling to convey complex concepts can be incredibly effective, especially when addressing issues as urgent, complex, and manifold as environmental conservation. That screen play is finished. Hopefully, it’s good enough so that it may catch a producer’s eye or Leonardo Di Capri’s interest as the official UN representative for the environment, and we can take it to the screen for worldwide view, understanding, and start our environmental groups worldwide. This is my way of better reaching out directly and I do hope I will find guides and followers in this journey).
History shows that population control, like so many other things, is not amenable to sanctions or incentives and this form of approach makes the all too common mistake of addressing the symptoms rather than the causes. The root of a particular problem is not always easy to determine but I am ever more convinced that supporting and resourcing communities to manage their local economies and basic needs is the best starting point. Local control of food, shelter, health, education and power - albeit in a wider state framework - feels like the best way for people to make their own decisions, whether its about their role in their community or having children. Stability, education and access to birth control is very likely to reduce birth rates in Africa and elsewhere.
I very much believe that we will struggle to manage global resources without population decline. In more developed nations this is happening currently and arguably because of the general anxiety about the future. Should things stabilise, however, in the future and people feel more safe will birth rates increase again?
A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL PROPOSAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY
GOOD and BAD SOVEREIGNTY
This proposal advocates for a significant paradigm change in how we perceive, understand, and manage the roots of global warming. This shift is essentially moving away from the present general basic beliefs of what is considered Sovereignty in our days as “the supreme power or authority of each country within their official boundaries admitted as such by the rest of the countries of the world”.
We find very damaging the claim “WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES”. Why?, because it allows countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they wish, whatever they choose, as long as it is “within their official boundaries“ and regardless of the damage it can cause to the environment or nearby countries. It is a claim universally accepted in Constitutions of the world. However, THAT DIVISION AND UNLIMITED POWER IS WRONG. The environment is a shared global resource that transcends countries’ political boundaries. That is why we introduce and propose ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning notion of Sovereignty as far as the environment is concerned. THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE POLITICALLY PARCELED OR DIVIDED, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONGST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. We find that the present division of the environment amongst countries of the world is or could well be the major cause of global warming.
However, countries do not accept that “the environment is a shared global resource that transcends national boundaries”. On the contrary, countries take for granted that, within its borders, the environment is a rightfully earned and inherited property and therefore countries have an absolute free hand to do environmentally whatever they wish within those borders, and that is what countries call “SOVEREIGNTY”. It is Sovereignty all right, but it is BAD SOVEREIGNTY.
In sum….
1) Countries policies cannot be a dominant factor reigning above the environment. THE ENVIRONMENT is beyond not only of what countries presently call SOVEREIGNTY but also above their Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a “Power above Powers”.
2) Political authoritarianism and lack of or improper enforcement of pro-environment laws is a very damaging factor that impacts very negatively the environment.
3) Worldwide environmental degradation will continue until the present concept of SOVEREIGNTY is changed and the world accepts that there are only two kinds of sovereignty in its place: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY or BAD SOVEREIGNTY. The first respects the environment as a power above all powers. The second, does not.
What does all this mean?
1) Human presence anywhere in the world must not be indifferent to the environment. When it is in a positive way, we call it GOOD SOVEREIGNTY. If it is in a negative way, we call it BAD SOVEREIGNTY
2) Like it or not, the environment has been and will be considered always the backbone of any country, city or community and as such should be prioritized and cared for accordingly.
3) Caring for the environment is not only an obligation but also an art.
4) It’s not difficult for all countries to start seriously caring for the environment. There are many good ideas and proposals around, for example, ¿why do we need so many military academies in the world? We can start by abolishing military academies in 90% of the countries of the world as they are useless in present day warfare. THEY CAN BE REPLACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL UNIVERSITIES. A police force in cities will always be necessary just as a force to look after the countries’ borders.
5) “Watch Dog” policy for automatic applicable pre-stablished penalties (i.e., a country’s flagship planes will not be allowed to land in a foreign country until full environmental reparations are satisfied, including fines).
6) Independent chapters in all countries, schools, universities, regions, communities of the world can be started following general guidelines set forward here. Eventually they will become a common universal force which will come together and set worldwide standards for GOOD SOVEREINTY caring for the environment, proposing rules and regulations which will eventually become common enforceable laws local or worldwide. The sky is the limit. Is it a bad idea to have a UNITED NATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or similar in Costa Rica or in Southern Asia?
In sum, what do we propose?
Eradicate BAD SOVEREIGNTY from the world and replace it with GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental health with global well-being is more than thought-provoking argument. Yes, quite easy to say, but not impossible to achieve. It can be done, and must be done, the sooner the better. Constitutions of all countries must therefore be changed accordingly. It will take time and resources, lots of pushing and pulling, but we don’t see any other way out if we want a world for our and future generations. Big Money will oppose it of course, just as political interests and arrogance, ignorance, fear, and indifference, but facts are facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY IS NOT FOREVER.
(To reinforce the presentation and being a published novelist (in Spanish), a screen play idea came to my mind. Is innovative and has the potential to reach a wider audience, especially when considering the power of storytelling in raising awareness and inspiring action. As a writer, I know that using storytelling to convey complex concepts can be incredibly effective, especially when addressing issues as urgent, complex, and manifold as environmental conservation. That screen play is finished. Hopefully, it’s good enough so that it may catch a producer’s eye or Leonardo Di Capri’s interest as the official UN representative for the environment, and we can take it to the screen for worldwide view, understanding, and start our environmental groups worldwide. This is my way of better reaching out directly and I do hope I will find guides and followers in this journey).
Thank you.
Jorge A. Partidas Alzuru
soberania.ambiental.global@gmail.com
(+52 744 123 4513)
Venezuela
A train load of 10 gentle miss direction narrative. Summertree has nothing to do with the complete stoppage of extracting fossil fuels. That's just something we should all do because it's the right fucking thing to do my God
diarrhea emanating from “Hudson E Baldwin III” in the comments?
Dang dude - you get some classic replies on substack. Nice work.
Do you have anything but ad hominem bullshit?
Humans' presence in the world should also not be indifferent to the presence of other humans in the world and impose policies upon them 'from above'.
The masses should impose sustainability on themselves.
We're headed for a complete extinction event here. We're already in the middle of it. And right now there are at least 6.5 billion people that are completely passed the sustainable point of this planet wide Eco biosphere habitat. All facilitated by one dynamic. Extraction and use of fossil fuels. Without it we would not have had the ability to expand seven years worth of resources in a year. You really don't have a valid reply here just nebulous ethereal drivel. The one assertion you make concerning population is a complete impossibility.
Hudson maybe you'd like to be more specific instead of sounding like you're at the Mall complaining about how you think the sweatshop clothing is not up to snuff for you today. hahaha. Better shopping experience next to for you - the customer is always correct!
Botboi circle jerk. Facilitated by your local planet raping fossil fuel entity
In the Pennsylvania Dutch region, some people make a dish called "bot boi" (or "bottboi") by Pennsylvania German-speaking natives. Pennsylvania Dutch pot pie is not actually a pot pie. Rather, it is a stew without a crust.
"Pennsylvanian Dutch" means German. Jesus you're lame. Wasn't a good idea to identify yourself as German right after the two big wars.
A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL PROPOSAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY
GOOD and BAD SOVEREIGNTY
This proposal advocates for a significant paradigm change in how we perceive, understand, and manage the roots of global warming. This shift is essentially moving away from the present general basic beliefs of what is considered Sovereignty in our days as “the supreme power or authority of each country within their official boundaries admitted as such by the rest of the countries of the world”.
We find very damaging the claim “WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES”. Why?, because it allows countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they wish, whatever they choose, as long as it is “within their official boundaries“ and regardless of the damage it can cause to the environment or nearby countries. It is a claim universally accepted in Constitutions of the world. However, THAT DIVISION AND UNLIMITED POWER IS WRONG. The environment is a shared global resource that transcends countries’ political boundaries. That is why we introduce and propose ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning notion of Sovereignty as far as the environment is concerned. THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE POLITICALLY PARCELED OR DIVIDED, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONGST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. We find that the present division of the environment amongst countries of the world is or could well be the major cause of global warming.
However, countries do not accept that “the environment is a shared global resource that transcends national boundaries”. On the contrary, countries take for granted that, within its borders, the environment is a rightfully earned and inherited property and therefore countries have an absolute free hand to do environmentally whatever they wish within those borders, and that is what countries call “SOVEREIGNTY”. It is Sovereignty all right, but it is BAD SOVEREIGNTY.
In sum….
1) Countries policies cannot be a dominant factor reigning above the environment. THE ENVIRONMENT is beyond not only of what countries presently call SOVEREIGNTY but also above their Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a “Power above Powers”.
2) Political authoritarianism and lack of or improper enforcement of pro-environment laws is a very damaging factor that impacts very negatively the environment.
3) Worldwide environmental degradation will continue until the present concept of SOVEREIGNTY is changed and the world accepts that there are only two kinds of sovereignty in its place: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY or BAD SOVEREIGNTY. The first respects the environment as a power above all powers. The second, does not.
What does all this mean?
1) Human presence anywhere in the world must not be indifferent to the environment. When it is in a positive way, we call it GOOD SOVEREIGNTY. If it is in a negative way, we call it BAD SOVEREIGNTY
2) Like it or not, the environment has been and will be considered always the backbone of any country, city or community and as such should be prioritized and cared for accordingly.
3) Caring for the environment is not only an obligation but also an art.
4) It’s not difficult for all countries to start seriously caring for the environment. There are many good ideas and proposals around, for example, ¿why do we need so many military academies in the world? We can start by abolishing military academies in 90% of the countries of the world as they are useless in present day warfare. THEY CAN BE REPLACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL UNIVERSITIES. A police force in cities will always be necessary just as a force to look after the countries’ borders.
5) “Watch Dog” policy for automatic applicable pre-stablished penalties (i.e., a country’s flagship planes will not be allowed to land in a foreign country until full environmental reparations are satisfied, including fines).
6) Independent chapters in all countries, schools, universities, regions, communities of the world can be started following general guidelines set forward here. Eventually they will become a common universal force which will come together and set worldwide standards for GOOD SOVEREINTY caring for the environment, proposing rules and regulations which will eventually become common enforceable laws local or worldwide. The sky is the limit. Is it a bad idea to have a UNITED NATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or similar in Costa Rica or in Southern Asia?
In sum, what do we propose?
Eradicate BAD SOVEREIGNTY from the world and replace it with GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental health with global well-being is more than thought-provoking argument. Yes, quite easy to say, but not impossible to achieve. It can be done, and must be done, the sooner the better. Constitutions of all countries must therefore be changed accordingly. It will take time and resources, lots of pushing and pulling, but we don’t see any other way out if we want a world for our and future generations. Big Money will oppose it of course, just as political interests and arrogance, ignorance, fear, and indifference, but facts are facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY IS NOT FOREVER.
(To reinforce the presentation and being a published novelist (in Spanish), a screen play idea came to my mind. Is innovative and has the potential to reach a wider audience, especially when considering the power of storytelling in raising awareness and inspiring action. As a writer, I know that using storytelling to convey complex concepts can be incredibly effective, especially when addressing issues as urgent, complex, and manifold as environmental conservation. That screen play is finished. Hopefully, it’s good enough so that it may catch a producer’s eye or Leonardo Di Capri’s interest as the official UN representative for the environment, and we can take it to the screen for worldwide view, understanding, and start our environmental groups worldwide. This is my way of better reaching out directly and I do hope I will find guides and followers in this journey).
Thank you.
Jorge A. Partidas Alzuru
soberania.ambiental.global@gmail.com
(+52 744 123 4513)
Venezuela
One-size-fits-all solutions are exactly what we do not need, because they are not equally suited for all places. In practice they are often devastating to nations where they are inappropriate for local conditions and circumstances, which vary widely.
When external parties or individuals (often under the banner of climate/environmental activism) claim to want to "preserve" the environments of other countries, it's usually got much more to do with their interest in the natural resources in those countries than the environment per se. It concerns them, apparently, that countries can use their own resources to develop themselves, while those very resources could rather be exported to them instead ...
For your convenience, Rachel, my views on present-day environmentalism (and climate activism) - from my latest essay:
EXTRACT:
"Much of the literature concerning sustainable development, the circular economy, and JETs heavily emphasises phrases related to climate care, environmental protection, and social equity. However, despite these stated objectives, real-world outcomes often fall short, potentially contributing to the infrequent analysis of case studies by environmentalists. This lack of interest raises several questions about environmentalism.
Nowadays, it is commonplace to see environmentalists and climate activists fervently advocating for new products and services hailed as sustainable solutions. However, while mainstream activists frequently lead protests against fossil fuels, there is a noticeable lack of protests addressing the environmental destruction zones caused by the energy transition from fossil fuel extraction to the extraction of various rare-earth minerals and other minerals. Moreover, the impact on local communities in many countries and regions appears to be of little concern.
It seems that grassroots environmentalism has been displaced and overtaken by pseudo- environmentalism. However, in truth, the modern environmental movement has always been used as a platform to advance political, social, and commercial interests that are not directly linked to the environment. By invoking environmental concerns, assertions of morality and ethics are made to advocate for the phasing out of fossil fuels. However, authentic environmentalism would require questioning the damaging effects of implementing renewable energy solutions for the energy transition.
It is noteworthy that in the face of alternative facts, environmentalists generally tend to stick to their guns, suggesting that environmentalism is a dogma-driven phenomenon, akin to a secular religion. This aspect was recognised by depth psychologists decades ago." - JJM
https://energyshifts.net/truth-and-energy-at-the-crossroads/
A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL PROPOSAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY
GOOD and BAD SOVEREIGNTY
This proposal advocates for a significant paradigm change in how we perceive, understand, and manage the roots of global warming. This shift is essentially moving away from the present general basic beliefs of what is considered Sovereignty in our days as “the supreme power or authority of each country within their official boundaries admitted as such by the rest of the countries of the world”.
We find very damaging the claim “WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES”. Why?, because it allows countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they wish, whatever they choose, as long as it is “within their official boundaries“ and regardless of the damage it can cause to the environment or nearby countries. It is a claim universally accepted in Constitutions of the world. However, THAT DIVISION AND UNLIMITED POWER IS WRONG. The environment is a shared global resource that transcends countries’ political boundaries. That is why we introduce and propose ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning notion of Sovereignty as far as the environment is concerned. THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE POLITICALLY PARCELED OR DIVIDED, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONGST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. We find that the present division of the environment amongst countries of the world is or could well be the major cause of global warming.
However, countries do not accept that “the environment is a shared global resource that transcends national boundaries”. On the contrary, countries take for granted that, within its borders, the environment is a rightfully earned and inherited property and therefore countries have an absolute free hand to do environmentally whatever they wish within those borders, and that is what countries call “SOVEREIGNTY”. It is Sovereignty all right, but it is BAD SOVEREIGNTY.
In sum….
1) Countries policies cannot be a dominant factor reigning above the environment. THE ENVIRONMENT is beyond not only of what countries presently call SOVEREIGNTY but also above their Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a “Power above Powers”.
2) Political authoritarianism and lack of or improper enforcement of pro-environment laws is a very damaging factor that impacts very negatively the environment.
3) Worldwide environmental degradation will continue until the present concept of SOVEREIGNTY is changed and the world accepts that there are only two kinds of sovereignty in its place: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY or BAD SOVEREIGNTY. The first respects the environment as a power above all powers. The second, does not.
What does all this mean?
1) Human presence anywhere in the world must not be indifferent to the environment. When it is in a positive way, we call it GOOD SOVEREIGNTY. If it is in a negative way, we call it BAD SOVEREIGNTY
2) Like it or not, the environment has been and will be considered always the backbone of any country, city or community and as such should be prioritized and cared for accordingly.
3) Caring for the environment is not only an obligation but also an art.
4) It’s not difficult for all countries to start seriously caring for the environment. There are many good ideas and proposals around, for example, ¿why do we need so many military academies in the world? We can start by abolishing military academies in 90% of the countries of the world as they are useless in present day warfare. THEY CAN BE REPLACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL UNIVERSITIES. A police force in cities will always be necessary just as a force to look after the countries’ borders.
5) “Watch Dog” policy for automatic applicable pre-stablished penalties (i.e., a country’s flagship planes will not be allowed to land in a foreign country until full environmental reparations are satisfied, including fines).
6) Independent chapters in all countries, schools, universities, regions, communities of the world can be started following general guidelines set forward here. Eventually they will become a common universal force which will come together and set worldwide standards for GOOD SOVEREINTY caring for the environment, proposing rules and regulations which will eventually become common enforceable laws local or worldwide. The sky is the limit. Is it a bad idea to have a UNITED NATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or similar in Costa Rica or in Southern Asia?
In sum, what do we propose?
Eradicate BAD SOVEREIGNTY from the world and replace it with GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental health with global well-being is more than thought-provoking argument. Yes, quite easy to say, but not impossible to achieve. It can be done, and must be done, the sooner the better. Constitutions of all countries must therefore be changed accordingly. It will take time and resources, lots of pushing and pulling, but we don’t see any other way out if we want a world for our and future generations. Big Money will oppose it of course, just as political interests and arrogance, ignorance, fear, and indifference, but facts are facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY IS NOT FOREVER.
(To reinforce the presentation and being a published novelist (in Spanish), a screen play idea came to my mind. Is innovative and has the potential to reach a wider audience, especially when considering the power of storytelling in raising awareness and inspiring action. As a writer, I know that using storytelling to convey complex concepts can be incredibly effective, especially when addressing issues as urgent, complex, and manifold as environmental conservation. That screen play is finished. Hopefully, it’s good enough so that it may catch a producer’s eye or Leonardo Di Capri’s interest as the official UN representative for the environment, and we can take it to the screen for worldwide view, understanding, and start our environmental groups worldwide. This is my way of better reaching out directly and I do hope I will find guides and followers in this journey).
Thank you.
Jorge A. Partidas Alzuru
soberania.ambiental.global@gmail.com
(+52 744 123 4513)
Venezuela
There is not one environment, one population, or one climate, there are MANY of all of them. It's a fundamental flaw in thinking to claim that "the environment" is a singular concept - and the same goes for "the climate", etc. Your climate in the northern part of South America is not my climate in the southern region of Africa. Our environments are different and so are our populations and many other things. Any claims to universal solutions are therefore false from the outset, because they are based in the principle of everywhere is the same. It is exactly because everywhere is different that we need sovereignty so that each nation can resolve their own crises appropriately within their own contexts, as discussed in "A Crisis in Thinking and the Way Out" :
https://archive.is/ZVliB
Hello Rachel,
Some of us in the southern hemisphere are actually paying attention to discussions related to solutions being discussed on our behalf for ostensible global crises that are essentially localised issues that have been elevated to global status. So, I'd like to unpack a segment of your comments in this podcast from the following excerpt:
@ 15:35
"The mutual benefit of reparations is that ensuring that the continent of Africa does not have to go through an industrial revolution in order to develop or give certain social or political resources that it may want to give to its different populations. That is critical. We need to bypass the industrial revolution and go straight to a kind of green justice transition de-growth global model. We cannot afford to have the same emissions up in the air as started 200 years ago by Western Europe." - RD
1. Climate reparations: This is a hugely questionable concept. First of all, climate issues are local and regional, not global. The entire climate change narrative is based on selective science - are you part of the "science is settled" crowd?. So, the foundation for the premise of climate reparations is flawed from the outset, and to what end? For Africa to stop developing itself with its own resources while still allowing those resources to be exported to already highly developed first world nations? (Which used Africa's resources in the first place for their development). With all respect I think you need to take a few moments and reflect upon just how imperialistic that sounds to people in the Global South.
2. Bypassing the industrial revolution: This is impossible because the (so-called) "green transition" is itself a new industrial revolution. Extraction is just shifting from fossil fuels to the minerals required for the production of renewable technologies. The only question is which one is, or will, be worse. My view is the latter will be. "Degrowth", although a nice idea, is simply unrealistic because no nation is going to voluntarily stop developing themselves - that would be going against human nature itself. I have written about that here:
https://energyshifts.net/there-are-no-limits-to-growth/
3. As for "green justice" why not investigate how "just" the (so-called) Just Energy Transition is going in South Africa? It seems environmentalists are steering a very wide berth around the topic. I wonder why that would that be? See the segment "A Missing Case Study" for my comprehensive thoughts on the issue in my latest essay:
https://energyshifts.net/truth-and-energy-at-the-crossroads/
[download links available on the above page]
@ 19:40
"... to combat this really global problem we have." - RD
We've got a global problem alright and it's not what environmentalists and climate activists make it out to be. In summary it is this - the biggest crisis the world is facing is a crisis in thinking:
"The continual creation of crises through global thinking leads to centralised and collectivised conceptual frameworks that, upon objective analyses, are mostly chimeras and mirages. Thinking globally all the time can result in muddled thinking, contributing to what could be considered a crisis in thinking. Hence, global thinking is part and parcel of a global crisis in thinking." - JJM.
A Crisis in Thinking and The Way Out: https://energyshifts.net/a-crisis-in-thinking-and-the-way-out/
A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL PROPOSAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY
GOOD and BAD SOVEREIGNTY
This proposal advocates for a significant paradigm change in how we perceive, understand, and manage the roots of global warming. This shift is essentially moving away from the present general basic beliefs of what is considered Sovereignty in our days as “the supreme power or authority of each country within their official boundaries admitted as such by the rest of the countries of the world”.
We find very damaging the claim “WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES”. Why?, because it allows countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they wish, whatever they choose, as long as it is “within their official boundaries“ and regardless of the damage it can cause to the environment or nearby countries. It is a claim universally accepted in Constitutions of the world. However, THAT DIVISION AND UNLIMITED POWER IS WRONG. The environment is a shared global resource that transcends countries’ political boundaries. That is why we introduce and propose ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning notion of Sovereignty as far as the environment is concerned. THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE POLITICALLY PARCELED OR DIVIDED, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONGST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. We find that the present division of the environment amongst countries of the world is or could well be the major cause of global warming.
However, countries do not accept that “the environment is a shared global resource that transcends national boundaries”. On the contrary, countries take for granted that, within its borders, the environment is a rightfully earned and inherited property and therefore countries have an absolute free hand to do environmentally whatever they wish within those borders, and that is what countries call “SOVEREIGNTY”. It is Sovereignty all right, but it is BAD SOVEREIGNTY.
In sum….
1) Countries policies cannot be a dominant factor reigning above the environment. THE ENVIRONMENT is beyond not only of what countries presently call SOVEREIGNTY but also above their Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a “Power above Powers”.
2) Political authoritarianism and lack of or improper enforcement of pro-environment laws is a very damaging factor that impacts very negatively the environment.
3) Worldwide environmental degradation will continue until the present concept of SOVEREIGNTY is changed and the world accepts that there are only two kinds of sovereignty in its place: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY or BAD SOVEREIGNTY. The first respects the environment as a power above all powers. The second, does not.
What does all this mean?
1) Human presence anywhere in the world must not be indifferent to the environment. When it is in a positive way, we call it GOOD SOVEREIGNTY. If it is in a negative way, we call it BAD SOVEREIGNTY
2) Like it or not, the environment has been and will be considered always the backbone of any country, city or community and as such should be prioritized and cared for accordingly.
3) Caring for the environment is not only an obligation but also an art.
4) It’s not difficult for all countries to start seriously caring for the environment. There are many good ideas and proposals around, for example, ¿why do we need so many military academies in the world? We can start by abolishing military academies in 90% of the countries of the world as they are useless in present day warfare. THEY CAN BE REPLACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL UNIVERSITIES. A police force in cities will always be necessary just as a force to look after the countries’ borders.
5) “Watch Dog” policy for automatic applicable pre-stablished penalties (i.e., a country’s flagship planes will not be allowed to land in a foreign country until full environmental reparations are satisfied, including fines).
6) Independent chapters in all countries, schools, universities, regions, communities of the world can be started following general guidelines set forward here. Eventually they will become a common universal force which will come together and set worldwide standards for GOOD SOVEREINTY caring for the environment, proposing rules and regulations which will eventually become common enforceable laws local or worldwide. The sky is the limit. Is it a bad idea to have a UNITED NATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or similar in Costa Rica or in Southern Asia?
In sum, what do we propose?
Eradicate BAD SOVEREIGNTY from the world and replace it with GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental health with global well-being is more than thought-provoking argument. Yes, quite easy to say, but not impossible to achieve. It can be done, and must be done, the sooner the better. Constitutions of all countries must therefore be changed accordingly. It will take time and resources, lots of pushing and pulling, but we don’t see any other way out if we want a world for our and future generations. Big Money will oppose it of course, just as political interests and arrogance, ignorance, fear, and indifference, but facts are facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY IS NOT FOREVER.
(To reinforce the presentation and being a published novelist (in Spanish), a screen play idea came to my mind. Is innovative and has the potential to reach a wider audience, especially when considering the power of storytelling in raising awareness and inspiring action. As a writer, I know that using storytelling to convey complex concepts can be incredibly effective, especially when addressing issues as urgent, complex, and manifold as environmental conservation. That screen play is finished. Hopefully, it’s good enough so that it may catch a producer’s eye or Leonardo Di Capri’s interest as the official UN representative for the environment, and we can take it to the screen for worldwide view, understanding, and start our environmental groups worldwide. This is my way of better reaching out directly and I do hope I will find guides and followers in this journey).
Thank you.
Jorge A. Partidas Alzuru
soberania.ambiental.global@gmail.com
(+52 744 123 4513)
Venezuela
6) "Independent chapters ..." (Soviets?).
Hi Rachel: In support of your PetroRape book, I just posted this reply to Professor Michael Grosso's latest blogpost on his "Consciousness Unbound" blog. He posted on global warming. I wrote my master's thesis on "radical ecology" and "sound-current nondualism" with music theory as a philosophy of science. My advisors included a music professor and a philosophy of religion - hermeneutics professor (actually a Jesuit theologian). They really didn't understand me and actually most of my master's degree was self-directed activist policy work. The University president even emailed me asking me not to go on "unlimited hunger strike" since I had "accomplished enough" already. hahaha.
So I finished my master's degree by doing intensive qigong meditation training to test out my music theory hypothesis - via the African Studies department. This led me to fasting for a week on just a half glass of water (the whole time not each day). This is called "bigu" in qigong traditional Chinese medicine meditation but this "bigu" is actually alchemy and it's also found in the South Indian Dravidian yoga tradition. I recently corresponded with a youtuber who had made the connection between sun-gazing and fasting and the creation of "ambrosia" in the alchemy tradition of South India. He was definitely interested in the bigu research conference held by professor Rustum Roy, a material chemistry researcher from India.
So one thing I discovered is that when I broke my fast salt tasted like poison! I knew I was in trouble then since salt is everywhere in our modern diet. But if you study our original human culture - DNA science now proves the "pygmies" split from the San Bushmen 225,000 years ago - and they did not eat salt traditionally (well maybe sometimes).
Similarly I am very sensitive to sugar - it creates an internal tingling sensation and causes anaerobic bacteria to go up the front of my body into my skull! hahahaha. Of course sugar is everywhere in the modern diet also - so I order organic ginger powder from India. I eat tons of ginger - in milk and lots in orange juice, etc.
In fact the famous yogi Sri Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas, author of "This House is on Fire" - or a memoir about him - in his travels of the U.S. - he could never find food pure enough for his body requirements!
As you know from your research on the Man Who Could Fly, Saint Joseph de Copertino ate mainly bitter greens as his main food source and he had what is called a "modified bigu" diet. The teacher I trained with also levitated up nine feet while he was in full lotus meditation - but he did this right after he finished a 28 day nonstop cave meditation in full lotus (around 1995).
So our modern left-brain dominant mentality has lost connection with our body emotional connection to diet on a subconscious level. In traditional Chinese medicine if the liver is blocked this causes anger - so that explains why a meat and alcohol diet causes so much rage in say German culture or Europe Yamnaya culture (that conquered around 2000-3000 BCE). Salt causes too much thinking - and sugar also - with the kidney and pancreas/spleen getting blocked just as too much caffeine causes fear. When the lungs are damaged from smoking this causes depression but Western medicine has yet to make this connection that I know of - between lung health and depression!!
I also learned that ghosts are real and the qigong master I trained with - Chunyi Lin - he even heals ghosts! But the Eastern guru tradition is part of the Royal tantric tradition of the Bronze age - and thus also relies on the spiritual ego of the patriarchy. So alchemy relies on storing up the energy with lust as "evil fire" of the heart. Of course Saint Joseph de Copertino, as your research describes, also had women chasing after him and he focused on the Mother of God for his worship - love as compassion instead of lust.
In my experience in psychic tantric healing there is a direct connection from female lust to love but as a male - the ejaculation spikes the cortisol stress as an addictive positive feedback escalation of violence. Meaning lust is dopamine bliss but with the sympathetic nervous system spike of ejaculation then cortisol stress follows - and this pattern makes the stress worse and worse. This is why every male in our original human culture was required to train in female bliss based on the right side vagus nerve (what later became known as tantra). The problem in psychic tantra is that the energy is still stuck in what Mahayana Buddhism calls the "realm of form." In Daoist yoga this is called "yin qi" as psychic energy in contrast to "yuan qi" as what is called Shakti in Indian yoga.
So what I'm describing now is a realm of reality that modern people know nothing about since it is experienced through the pineal gland and heart and small intestines - the central channel - as it interacts holographically with what science calls "protoconsciousness" as an "active information" from the future based on noncommutativity or asymmetric time-frequency (the truth of nonwestern music).
So our ecological crisis is based on a deep left-brain bias that created patriarchal religion as a closed symmetric logic (I am that I am) for God as Brahman (Abraham) Bull plow (rape) of Nature. This "Western civilization" spread disease through intensive animal domestication - around the world - with genocidal war - as detailed in Professor Alfred Crosby's book "Ecological Imperialism" - even Africa took up the "Hoe" as iron age Bantu farming based on polygamy of the females.
We got cut off from our original human culture that lived in the forest and relied on listening as our dominant perception used by the males in hunting. With a pastoral (Eden) domestication of animals and subsequent plow monocultural farming culture as 'civilization" - we created what Professor David F. Noble called "The Promised Land" - in his final book "Beyond the Promised Land" - a follow up to his classic "The Religion of Technology" (1996).
So I agree with you that a focus on the self is key and yet it is also quite the challenge.
thanks,
drew w. hempel
Holy shit. You need help, Bruh. Not quite as bad as the planets ecosystem but damn here. That's a high bar!
Hudson maybe you'd like to be more specific instead of sounding like you're at the Mall complaining about how you think the sweatshop clothing is not up to snuff for you today. hahaha. Better shopping experience next to for you - the customer is always correct!
Shovel shit is all you do?
A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL PROPOSAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY
GOOD and BAD SOVEREIGNTY
This proposal advocates for a significant paradigm change in how we perceive, understand, and manage the roots of global warming. This shift is essentially moving away from the present general basic beliefs of what is considered Sovereignty in our days as “the supreme power or authority of each country within their official boundaries admitted as such by the rest of the countries of the world”.
We find very damaging the claim “WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES”. Why?, because it allows countries to do, environmentally speaking, whatever they wish, whatever they choose, as long as it is “within their official boundaries“ and regardless of the damage it can cause to the environment or nearby countries. It is a claim universally accepted in Constitutions of the world. However, THAT DIVISION AND UNLIMITED POWER IS WRONG. The environment is a shared global resource that transcends countries’ political boundaries. That is why we introduce and propose ENVIRONMENTAL SOVEREIGNTY which is totally divorced from the reigning notion of Sovereignty as far as the environment is concerned. THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE POLITICALLY PARCELED OR DIVIDED, PROPORTIONALLY OR NOT, AMONGST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD. We find that the present division of the environment amongst countries of the world is or could well be the major cause of global warming.
However, countries do not accept that “the environment is a shared global resource that transcends national boundaries”. On the contrary, countries take for granted that, within its borders, the environment is a rightfully earned and inherited property and therefore countries have an absolute free hand to do environmentally whatever they wish within those borders, and that is what countries call “SOVEREIGNTY”. It is Sovereignty all right, but it is BAD SOVEREIGNTY.
In sum….
1) Countries policies cannot be a dominant factor reigning above the environment. THE ENVIRONMENT is beyond not only of what countries presently call SOVEREIGNTY but also above their Judicial, Legislative and Administrative powers. It is a “Power above Powers”.
2) Political authoritarianism and lack of or improper enforcement of pro-environment laws is a very damaging factor that impacts very negatively the environment.
3) Worldwide environmental degradation will continue until the present concept of SOVEREIGNTY is changed and the world accepts that there are only two kinds of sovereignty in its place: GOOD SOVEREIGNTY or BAD SOVEREIGNTY. The first respects the environment as a power above all powers. The second, does not.
What does all this mean?
1) Human presence anywhere in the world must not be indifferent to the environment. When it is in a positive way, we call it GOOD SOVEREIGNTY. If it is in a negative way, we call it BAD SOVEREIGNTY
2) Like it or not, the environment has been and will be considered always the backbone of any country, city or community and as such should be prioritized and cared for accordingly.
3) Caring for the environment is not only an obligation but also an art.
4) It’s not difficult for all countries to start seriously caring for the environment. There are many good ideas and proposals around, for example, ¿why do we need so many military academies in the world? We can start by abolishing military academies in 90% of the countries of the world as they are useless in present day warfare. THEY CAN BE REPLACED BY ENVIRONMENTAL UNIVERSITIES. A police force in cities will always be necessary just as a force to look after the countries’ borders.
5) “Watch Dog” policy for automatic applicable pre-stablished penalties (i.e., a country’s flagship planes will not be allowed to land in a foreign country until full environmental reparations are satisfied, including fines).
6) Independent chapters in all countries, schools, universities, regions, communities of the world can be started following general guidelines set forward here. Eventually they will become a common universal force which will come together and set worldwide standards for GOOD SOVEREINTY caring for the environment, proposing rules and regulations which will eventually become common enforceable laws local or worldwide. The sky is the limit. Is it a bad idea to have a UNITED NATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT or similar in Costa Rica or in Southern Asia?
In sum, what do we propose?
Eradicate BAD SOVEREIGNTY from the world and replace it with GOOD SOVEREIGNTY, which prioritizes global environmental interest above all other interests. Highlighting the interconnectedness of environmental health with global well-being is more than thought-provoking argument. Yes, quite easy to say, but not impossible to achieve. It can be done, and must be done, the sooner the better. Constitutions of all countries must therefore be changed accordingly. It will take time and resources, lots of pushing and pulling, but we don’t see any other way out if we want a world for our and future generations. Big Money will oppose it of course, just as political interests and arrogance, ignorance, fear, and indifference, but facts are facts: NATURE’S GENEROSITY IS NOT FOREVER.
(To reinforce the presentation and being a published novelist (in Spanish), a screen play idea came to my mind. Is innovative and has the potential to reach a wider audience, especially when considering the power of storytelling in raising awareness and inspiring action. As a writer, I know that using storytelling to convey complex concepts can be incredibly effective, especially when addressing issues as urgent, complex, and manifold as environmental conservation. That screen play is finished. Hopefully, it’s good enough so that it may catch a producer’s eye or Leonardo Di Capri’s interest as the official UN representative for the environment, and we can take it to the screen for worldwide view, understanding, and start our environmental groups worldwide. This is my way of better reaching out directly and I do hope I will find guides and followers in this journey).
Thank you.
Jorge A. Partidas Alzuru
soberania.ambiental.global@gmail.com
(+52 744 123 4513)
Venezuela