• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Whenever you search in PBworks or on the Web, Dokkio Sidebar (from the makers of PBworks) will run the same search in your Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Gmail, Slack, and browsed web pages. Now you can find what you're looking for wherever it lives. Try Dokkio Sidebar for free.


So What Are Some People Doing

Page history last edited by Charlie 1 year, 9 months ago

So what are some people doing? Why do people have to push the government to do something. Why do the members of the public have to see what is happening and put pressure on government to act? Is it because government is really out of touch, or is it really that the majority of people think that the environment, ecology, biological diversity is of no use?


Extinction Rebellion, Animal Rights organisations are forming. The Australian Earth Laws Alliance is one of these that believe all elements of the earth have rights . https://www.earthlaws.org.au/ Are these all young people under the age of dotage? Is this the new sixties movement, where people believe that other living things, even though we may not recognise them, or know they are sentient beings. Have the right to survive on this planet without pressure from the most populace animal species?


The Australian federal government led by Scott Morrison, is still following his lead and not doing much about attempting to alleviate the climate situation. The huge forest fires and the more recent flood events, are not something that makes him see the problem as many others do. He won the last election on a presidential style campaign and it would seem he thinks he can do something similar on the one coming up.


Did anyone ever think of the earth, rivers, individual and groups of plants (forests and grasslands) having rights? That women should be respected and allowed to be a free as men?


We are in a new movement, and that is the climate change everywhere, even within our society.

Let us hear what you think.


Thanks Max.


Sorry if my second paragraph was not clear. I have made a small correction, but doubt it will serve the purpose of clarity.

You introduce some interesting points:

(quote) many are wary of single issue campaigners lacking the sense of balance that recognises equal calls for attention from other issues (end quote)

My own thoughts exactly. I talked to bloke who was running for local council. I spoke to him about what was happening from a wildlife point of view. Explained we are a pond, the ripples go across the whole water, on and under the surface. I spoke of the roads their damage and not making them to last, the loss of forest, the water filters, the river systems that need fish and birds etc.. The foolishness of recycling, how it only gave permission for manufacturers to use more of the earths resources for packaging, air pollution by vehicles and burning of vast tracts of forest, refuse tips burning off; medicine, with people going too quickly to the doctor before allowing their body a chance to fight. Many things. He said, you are looking too wide too much of the whole. I am only campaigning on global warming. He didn't understand I was talking about climate change, just like he was.

Where does it start? Where does it start for different people? Look after the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves. Wildlife is my start point. If we look after wildlife and their needs, habitat, the air they breathe, the water they drink, the soil where they live etc., we look after our small section of the planet. Crazy things like build houses around trees, but ensuring they don't die and giving them space to grow. Yes. However there is no need to go to those extremes. Though some do just that and will not see them as “crazy”.

I have never heard of settled science. I have to add a disclaimer here: (disclaimer) Science has destroyed to much and then said they could fix it, badly in some cases. Is too tunnel visioned. (end disclaimer) Science does too often what you mentioned in the quote above for me to have confidence without questioning. However, I question everything, this being my own prejudice. I do not hold up a flag for anyone to run to on this or any issue or opinion I have. My prejudice is; we can lay much of the blame to our current problems on the short sighted and societies pressure to publish or perish attitude of science. However, if someone wants to start another page, we can debate that subject there.

(quote) Overturning this mindset can be traced to writings from the 18th c but has really only picked up speed post WW2 to the point nowadays that the same religions have now discarded this particular item for their heritage and use words like stewardship as if this had always been so. (end quote)

Yes, stewardship is now in the mind of people of religion. In their mind, it still makes them the boss, so they lose nothing. Soon it too will change and be rights as we move on and consider that everything on the planet has rights, because it has all been there longer than even we, has a greater claim to respect and survival than the usurper. Depending how that goes, it will still make humans feel they are the boss, which they are of course, because they hold the power of destruction.

Will try to add more later, have finished my coffee, and must return to nature.

Comments (4)

Max Beran said

at 3:32 pm on Mar 18, 2021

I'm afraid the second paragraph is somewhat garbled and incomprehensible but I gather from the general tenor that Charles is asking for views on why everybody doesn't go along with what I take to be his view as expressed in the linked website.
There are many reasons but if I may venture a few in no particular order: many are wary of single issue campaigners lacking the sense of balance that recognises equal calls for attention from other issues; they observe that the concern for the environment appears in societies only when they have achieved a good level of wealth and security; experience of the shortcomings and failures of models in other areas breeds suspicions about those involved in, for example, global warming; in similar vein many take with a pinch of salt expression of certainty about the far future sensing that climate and the natural world are highly complex and cannot merit such a degree of absolutism as voiced in such phrases as "settled science"; they may feel that the measures that are billed to be required to solve such an unknowable future are disproportionate; the theological tone is off-putting to some though recognising that one has to take certain positions and modes of expression in order to earn a clap from the Any Questions audience.
Charles also asks about "rights" and whether they have ever been granted to environmental matters. I would say historically not as biblical and koranic injunctions, which would have governed past thinking on such issues, are that the Earth's natural resources were provided from on high for the benefit and sustenance of mankind. Overturning this mindset can be traced to writings from the 18th c but has really only picked up speed post WW2 to the point nowadays that the same religions have now discarded this particular item for their heritage and use words like stewardship as if this had always been so.

Charlie said

at 11:50 pm on Mar 18, 2021

Please join in. The page is locked, as Max is using it at the moment so I will wait to post. It would be interesting to read what others have to say.

Charlie said

at 11:10 am on Aug 27, 2021

Getting busy now. I suppose there is no point discussing climate change when we are living it. WOW

Charlie said

at 2:02 am on Jan 31, 2022

It seems no one is really interested in this work on climate change. One may assume the subject is too large, and one feels helpless even to change a small in their own bailiwick; much less with an indifferent nature and world population, where everyone finds themselves living in slightly different conditions, with different wants.

Years ago, had a friend in Brazil, a retired lawyer, which is the wrong socio group for me. Though I believe in defending the underdog, but not for the reasons of becoming famous and/or rich.

I told him, I had signed a petition to stop logging the Amazon, because the destruction of too much of the world would be set in train. He was extremely angry with me. On the basis of we British and allies had plundered the planet to become rich and fat and now, when Brazil wanted to join that club of wealthy nations, live much the same lifestyle and be considered with the same respect. The nations that had pillaged the poor were attempting to put a stop to their progress to a better life. Something to consider.

Most wealthy nations are not queueing up to return some of what they took to make themselves rich, for various reasons.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.