Ministry of Mother Earth

Watched your video (got an overwhelming 'tinfoil hat' vibe from it, not to mention that fairly well nothing that it asserted was actually backed up, besides for information a single document that they confess that "you wouldn't believe it unless you've read it" ) and read the quotes that you've got lined out in the OP, and I remain fully supportive of Morales actions. I've written out below why this is so.

The Earth and all the interacting, inseperable elements that comprise its systems have always had a far greater dominance and superiority over humanity in the past... go onto Google Maps and take a look at the Amizon and you'll see more trees than anything else, the reason being that trees have conquered the resources sitting upon that land and come to occupy a position of dominance in that ecosystem that is not only sustainable, but so much so that those trees are now vital for fairly well every single animal living in that ecosystem. Though we like to believe that we are greater than every other living creature, I contend that trees have a rightful and ethical standing as the most dominant and superior lifeform on this planet, at least in those areas where they hold a hegemony on the resources of the land they occupy. The reason that I say this is because trees genuinely bring great benefit to life in any region in which they grow and destroy no renewable resources in the process of this - in fact, they destroy fairly well nothing at all in the course of their existence, instead creating oxygen, habitats/food for animals, segregation of habitat vital to the progression of evolution and biodiversity, and wood/shelter for human beings. The more trees there are, the richer the region is in the life that it can support, the Amazon and other rainforests highlighting this perfectly. The byproduct of the dominance of trees is, without any exaggeration, good for the entirity of the planet.

Compare the dominance of humans now to the dominance of trees. The very dominance of humans has required us to kill trees beyond count, a move that is relatively fine for the trees themselves as they will always have seeds to grow again from, but has been disasterous for many species of animal and insect, culminating in the extinction of many hundreds of species. Felling trees has also had negative effects on many humans, in pursuit of a 'benefit' that has had even graver effects on humans, animals, trees and indeed 'the planet'. This is the act of clearing land for pastoral use, mining use, the construction of factories, the erection of houses and cities and otherwise providing a canvas for humanity to dump her rubbish onto. To revert to trees briefly, their dominance destroyed nothing and instead created great benefits for life as a whole - our dominance as expressed by physically dominating the landscape has destroyed vast scores of trees, rivers, hills, valleys, plains and so on, and has benefited NO OTHER CREATURE but the select group of humans who happen to live on this land. Destroying all this land brings benefits for one singular irresponsible and selfish creature, and it's even more lamentable to note that razing and depleting the land like this doesn't even benefit all of the members of this singular, selfish species - in fact, it benefits the 20% or so that live in first world countries and is actively destructive to many of the other 80% of the population who have their land and resources fairly well stolen by gargantuan Western companies to funnel resources back to the West that no longer can be extracted from Western land due to those resources already having been largely consumed by by-gone generations of greedy Westerners responsible also for the near extermination of those who traditionally looked after and preserved the land. These indigenous people have done more for the planet than what the West has ever done, Australian Aboriginal people have sustained themselves and looked after nature here for over 60 000 years - there are few European settlements that are older than a mere 2000 years, many of these ancient cities having been abandoned for many hundreds of years because their occupants consumed all the resources in the area and thus effectively wiped themselves out. Anyhow, human dominance has thus spelled out genocide and disaster for those who's interests in sustaining themselves off of nature came into conflict with invaders interested in pillaging natural resources for short term growth and profit, and subsequent 'development' on this stolen land has seen much of the natural habitat in these areas cleared in its entirity to make way for human facilities that similarly have a massively negative effect upon the planet! Factories choke the atmosphere and pollute the rivers, oil refineries drill holes in the sea floor and potentially pollute the ocean with oil spills, the billions of cars that this oil fuels contribute nothing back to the planet but C02 and exhaust fumes, mineral refineries and natural gas hubs consume huge amounts of bushland and spew out only pollution and disposable goods to be carelessly and apathetically tossed upon a rubbish heap, while farming land regularly suffers the effects of salinity and soil depletion induced from overproducing food upon that land. Thus, every single byproduct of human dominance in the modern world is overwhelmingly negative for our planet, nicely summated by the fact that humans are the ONLY creatures on this planet to create waste that can't be used or incorporated sustainably into another natural process - the waste from all other creatures is sustainable and indeed beneficial, leaving only a positive footprint upon the planet, while our waste only destroys that which it is dumped upon.

I defy you or anyone else to tell me that I'm wrong and that humans are just as deserving of our dominance as trees are, that the effects of our dominance are in any way a good thing for the planet. As I contend, the very optimum and utmost benefit that can result in humans claiming dominance over the planet are those benefits accrued to the singular species to which humans belong, while in more realistic terms the dominance of humanity in the 20th and 21st centuries have been not beneficial but actively negative (and in many cases disasterous) for the gross majority of the singular species that this human dominance brings benefit too. To wrap up this train of thought, human dominance has been very very good for 10 or 20% of the population of one singular species, and ranging from 'bad' to catastrophic for 80% of that species and indeed fairly well every other species of animal, plant and insect on this planet.

The logical implication of this is that if our dominance is bad for all other forms of life on the planet, then these other forms of life (and the environment that supports them) requires as much protection from the negative effects of this dominance as is possible. In days gone by this was accomplished by indigenous Law and totemic systems whereby every individual could not kill or harm a particular form of life - in these modern days of 'progress' and world-capitalism, this system of natural preservation has been dismissed as 'savage' superstition, and has been replaced with doctrines such as that of 'rights.' As totems can no longer protect wildlife and Law can no longer protect the rivers, skies and soil, indigenous people must co-opt Western mechanisms of protection into their societies to protect these natural surroundings that are as much a part of us as we are a part of them - one such Western mechanism is the bestowal of rights. Giving rights to plants, insects, animals, oceans, rivers, skies, soil and skies goes beyond an act of protection and preservation of these vital resources, it is an admission (one that we should have pride to make) that we are no more important and no greater than any of these elements, that we wouldn't be here if not for the existence of these elements and that their survival and continual renewal is not just vital to our existence but to our place upon this earth. It is the act of cementing these products of nature/natural forces as our natural relatives with purposes and priorities in their own right similar to our own, rather than as a voiceless commodity that we consider ourselves to be above and at our disposal. Humanity thinks it can outrun nature, that it can stand above it and act as it wishes without needing to pay attention to the effects its actions upon everything that isn't human or otherwise doesn't bring benefit humanity - this is a position that we can no longer hold. For in turning our backs on nature in the name of ascending above it we have proved ourselves to be far below it, we have proved ourselves to be a scourge upon it that, in search of gold, keeps chipping away at the blocks that support the systems of life that act upon this planet in relation and reciprication with all the life on this planet. We chip away too many of these blocks and the goldmine that we've constructed above us comes crashing down onto our heads, thus ending our eternal and unsustainable spiral into destroying the planet for our purposes and conversely renewing the peace that nature needs to rebuild the vibrant biodiversity and strength of life that humanity has trampled.

Those who scoff at the notions of nature having rights are likely to be those who believe that only humans can have rights due to us being sentient enough to recognise them. This philosophy is one that gives us a blank cheque to fill in as we please, it offers us protection to act in whatever ways we wish towards those that don't have rights without consequence or consideration to that which can't speak for itself. This disturbing lack of foresight, depth of compassion and connection to the natural world is one that is not endemic to humanity, for indigenous peoples suffered none of these intellectual chains and shackles. It is instead a condition of economic growth that leads humanity to believe it somehow exists outside of nature, a mindset fraught with danger and destruction to everything else on the planet. Morales has taken a major step in the right direction to addressing and rectifying this cancerous growth that afflicts more and more of the earth, and I contend that the only people who will disagree are those who are put out by having to sacrifice some of their luxury and convenience brokered at the expense, death and poverty of much of the third world and the planet upon which all of us reside.

Three cheers for Morales the Wise!

 

I'm all for protecting the environment and all, but I really, really don't think that the U.N. has the answers.

Their answer is to post blue helmets at every corner, armed to the teeth, ready to kick in your face the moment you pollute anything.

 

But giving 'human rights' to mutli-billion dollar corporations is cool.

 

i think you are smoking good stuff. more than one aboriginal race are semi nomadic due to their habit of dumping their trash right outside the village borders...to the point that every decade or so they have to move. in the pacific northwest we find remains of longhouses, not just abandoned but systematically evacuated, and right next door we find huge shell middens and garbage piles...forchristsakes the whole field of archeology is little more than exploring proto-human garbage piles. you need to give up the ridiculous notion of the noble savage. they like us are all the same.

 

Very good stuff, only the finest homegrown here...

It's not a noble savage archetype I'm trying to put across here, it's one of sustainability - we have huge middens here too from Aboriginals, but is the waste contained in those middens in any way unnatural, non-renewable or harmful? 'No' is really the only answer you can give, it's shells, bones, tools and the like, not plastic bags, food wrappers, old batteries and burnt out machinery. The unifying factor, as you've identified, is that both of us dump rubbish, and this is part of the human condition... we are very much like them in this regard! But the rubbish that indigenous people dump comes from the planet and goes back to the planet without harming the planet, and this is not so for us because the economic system that we live under that facilitates the conditions necessary for the current situation that we see today to be able to occur, one where sustainability has no importance due to there being no profit involved, thus resulting in disposable production taking dominance at the forefront of our what we consume in Western society...

Also, migrations of nomadic aboriginal groups wasn't based around them simply extinguishing resources/making a huge pile of rubbish then moving on, it was fairly well entirely seasonal and done in order to capitalise upon different resources at different times of year, rather than simply to run away from the shortages encumbant in overusing resources in one area. As I say, Aboriginal society here has persevered for 60 000 + years, generating immense middens over the thousands of years of land occupation and usage but never depleting the land and running out of resources upon the land - poverty is simply not an indigenous concept under the biological and societal constraints of the nomadic lifestyle. Compare this to our city states, such as Sumer, which grew and grew and grew until they were unable to support themselves and collapsed, often as a result of depleting local resources and stripping the soil of its capacity to sustain life. You would not be able to find me an example of something comparable happening in indigenous society, for this kind of endless growth terminating by the growth toppling in on itself simply never occured in either Western recorded history or indigenous history. The limits were set by their lifestyle, and those limits were obeyed - often through customary Law designed to sustain populations in just such a way. This Law sourced in nature sustained humanity for the longest period of stability in its history, and there's a lot that we can learn a lot from it and will indeed have to learn from it if we're not to 'develop' ourselves out of existence... ya dig?

 

Aside from being a very staunch athiest (or naturalist, more to the point...) I can dig your first sentence there and get behind it fully - 'God' set things up and they worked. I substitute God for 'order through evolution', but none-the-less your God and/or my evolutionary beliefs resulted, in many parts of the world, in a relationship and indeed kinship between humankind its surroundings that most certainly did work. Now, I'm all for human progress and I can see the value in traditional marriage (so long as it isn't forced onto anybody), but modern civilisation simply does not foster this relationship. It instead encourages us to turn our backs on our surroundings and to worship the pursuit of self-betterment through engaging with the economy and mixing ones skills with the pre-existing scaffolding of th economy to achieve outcomes that are first and foremost good for the individual and secondarily good for ones society... now, this isn't a bad thing by any means! Bettering yourself and seeking 'success' in life defeats stagnation and self-neglect without a second thought, and it is only evolutionarily sensible to serve oneself firstly, your close relations secondarily and everyone else after having assured these two outcomes of serving yourself and your family. Nothing is wrong with this, it's a mentality that exists in indigenous societies just as much as it exists in Western societies (though this superficially shared mentality is based on different philosophical foundations) and in modern civilisation - the dividing factor between the two, as I was saying to spikoli and indeed as he pointed out to me, is in the framework that encompasses human activities. This framework is what I consider to be the chief manifestation of 'modern society', and it encompasses fairly well everything that exists outside of and shapes the individual - political institutions, dominant conceptions in economics, philosohpical doctrines that have caught the ears of the political executive, the consumer goods that give composition to the lifestyles that modern people live (and thus the contexts from which they are centered), the popular culture that is shaped upon all of the above... these subtle, insidious and multifaced agents of social engineering are the constituents of 'modern society' and are cumulatively what has led to things being the way that they are.

I generally agree with you man that a lot of the big players in pushing the environmentalist agenda are as self-interested and dubious in motivation as any other large organisation with an agenda to serve - a lot of the climate change science is poorly understood at best and manufactured lies at worst, while many political moves for 'environmentalism' are similarly foundationed on quicksand. I think that believing that greenies want to take over the world and institute a one-world government is absolutely ludicrous though man, it's an allegation that's no more true than an environmentalist claiming that tobacco lobbies and governments are in bed together for the purpose of killing the population through lung cancer. In the second example correlation (government and tobacco industry cooperation) is mistaken for causation (people are dying from tobacco, governments are allowing this and thus government/tobacco industries must want people to die) and the same mistake is made in your assertion - the correlation is that environmental groups are largely opposed to multinational corporations (who promote classic liberal ideas and individualism) and want them to have less power, and the implied 'causation' is that environmentalist groups must want to take power for themselves and utilise that power in a way that aligns with their anti classic-liberal beliefs. This is hardly a sound arguument, especially in light of the fact that environmentalists themselves have no ascribed political position whatsoever - you will find right-wing capitalist environmentalists, socialist environmentalists and environmentalists of all inclinations in between the two. Those spearheading the environmentalist movements are no exception to this rule, their unifying belief is in environmental preservation and any other belief lies outside of their role and function as environmentalists...

Once again, I feel you on this and agree with you, the news media acts upon a 'divide and conquer' strategy on behalf of the political elite to perpetuate the interests of that elite... but the news media is ultimately a mere RESULT or PRODUT of 'modern civilisation', without the scaffolding of modern civilisation monstrosities such as FOX and MNSBC couldn't exist and indeed didn't exist in societies gone by. It's all very well addressing the issues of the news media, but unless you address that which has created it and feeds it you're only addressing a very superficial concern and the issues that you seek to address will be (and are) manifested through other channels of executive action. The source of the news media as a profit-seeking organisation is in capitalism, the source of its perpetual facilitation of division among the population is in the capitalist doctrines of competition, and the source of the stranglehold that the political elite hold over it is in corporate-capitalism.

I would have brought this quote up myself! This embodies a lot of what I find to be very unethical and wrong about Christianity, Judaism and Islam... this 'dominion over the beasts, herbs of the field, fishes' idea, the 'man is Gods ultimate creation' idea, the 'animals were put here for our purposes' idea, the idea that we are made in Gods image and thus are special simply because we've written in a book that this is the case! This isn't the S & P section so I suppose we can't get too drawn into this, but evolutionarily none of these ideas are sound. As I said in my original long and rambling post, trees hold far greater dominion over humanity in many parts of the world, and where they do the world is a much better place for it... humans could march in there and 'take dominion' over the trees by chopping them all down, but God's not going to come and save us when the oxygen produced by these forests dwindles and C02 stacks up due to not being respirated by trees. It's not in our evolutionary interest to do this, taking dominion over nature is not in our interests of preservation... we may certainly use animals for our purposes, but once again this isn't evolutionarily stable if we're killing them to serve our purposes and thus crippling biodiversity and the pool of natural resources that we may draw upon. Finally, man is made in the image of Australopithecus and his primate ancestors, who in turn are made in the image of our shared mammalian ancestors who in turn are made 'in the image' of the original skeletally symmetrical vertebrate. We have inherited EVERY single fiber of our physical constituency from our evolutionary ancestors, our 'body plan' is one shared by every single other vertebrate on the planet. The horse skeleton is the same as the human skeleton, except that the dimensions of the bones differ - the 'body plan' is still the exact same though, one inherited from the original vertebrate to so successfully evolve such a body plan. I find great wonder in this, it is a source of great interconnectedness between all living creatures... and Christian ideals of man somehow being special and crafted 'in Gods image' undermine this interconnectedness, placing us on a pedestal that does not exist.

Hope you can dig it man, as I say I didn't mean to get myself into religious-rambling mode and hope I haven't misdirected the thread too much for having done so... peace

 

Tin foil hat shot down!