The power of the city

London used to be top city in 1895 with a population of 5,974,000 but has now sunk down well below others.

Whilst Bejing was the no 1 city in 1500 with a population of 672,000 with London not even reaching the top 10, it is now the leader with most growth with London being in 4th position. See the animation to see the development from 1500 to 2018.

London rose in the latter part of 1800 till the beginning of 1900 and then fell back sharply after world war II.

By 2100 London is not even expected to be in the top 20. However, caution has to be given to that list as it doesn’t include predicted sea-level rises by that time.

Whoever is in charge of policies in Britain today is not doing this country any favour by making policies, which will not lead to a growth either in size of our city or will help develop it.

 

Advertisements

Sectarianism

Sectarianism never works. It is, in my definition a violent pressure group, with specific cultural traits, that pressures an established government to allow those specific traits to prevail and if resisted fights for independence.

The Irish Sectarian movement have become clever and since they lost material support from the likes of Gaddafi they hush.

With the Kurds there is a peculiar problem, they have been used to fight Daesh – with US support – but now get hammered. But if the Kurds were clever, they would offer a truce to Turkey, let Turkey take over their land, occupied in Syria and then negotiate Syria’s Assad together with the Turks. Obviously the Russians wouldn’t support the Kurds because the Russians alrady support Assad. And fighting Syria and Russia v Turkey and the Kurds would attract international support, but as it is, the world just watches as Turkey hammers the Kurds. There have been escapes of Daesh prisoners already and it seems the previous problems are going to flare up again, which is quite unfortunate.

All Secterian movements are completely unflexible to other lifestyles. Of course that can be said about many cultures but what makes a group of people sectarian is, if they do not have the country to go with the lifestyle.

I suppose it is easy to manipulate any sectarian group anywhere in the world to cause trouble for the country or government they reside within. Any foreign power can supply the Resistance with weapons and get them to harrass the hated government.

I think it needs a world solution to this problem. With the ongoing climate change agenda, countries will need to learn to work together on that basis, perhaps they learn to put carbon footprints on the forefront of their thoughts, because wars are environmentally very damaging.

Perhaps we need a new world council, which decelerates wars. You can argue that nations have a right to defend themselves. This needs extraordinary amounts of weapons all around the globe. Weapons can be a deterrent but they also get used and inevitable cause immense destruction.

Here, we are back to sectarian groups who all think they have the right to be better and bigger.

 

London disruptions funded by billionnaires and philanthropists

There we have it, riches are concentrated among a small minority of elitists and once they realise that their previous business enrichment has been causing serious damange to the planet – because its the rich who are in charge of all business around the world – they simply finance a protest movement that aims to change things.

Those include:

  • Sir Christopher Hohn
  • Aileen Getty (oil heiress)
  • Radiohead (band)
  • Crowd funding (6.000 people donated £600.000 in a week)

But why concentrate the actions on London? The sponsors assume that no civil disobidience took place! Is that living in dream land?

The working people of London are unable to earn a living normally and they have to cope with triple the stress than normal!

Those donations should be used to pay for the extra policing effort it took to control those demonstrations. We need police to fight crime. We hear of stabbing every day and there is little police available to patrol our streets.

Perhaps those who lost out financially through the actions should take some steps to recover their monies. Now they know whom to ask.

So that is irresponsible.

Just heard that in Manchester a criminal has stabbed several people in a horrible incident. That is what we need our police for, not for making sure that those weird looking Extinction Rebellion demos are policed.

 

A weird new sect!

Ext-red

This pic is from Reuters and taken from the BBC website.

Now there are some letterbox looks for you. Or is it a sect? Why dress up in these outlandish outfits? The looks of Extinction Rebellion is more suitable for a sectarian movement. Maybe its going to be a new religion. Some people go to any length to find new relationships. Perhaps its as basic as that what drives them on to do what they do.

Every new protest movement has some merit. They bring up those grudges we have within us and just cannot find an outlet for. There is definitely a reason to be very worried about our planet but to cause even more mayhem is definitely not going to provide any solutions but just more problems.

How can those protesters even afford to spend all that time blocking roads, buying those costumes? They are not your average working people who need to earn their crust. They are probably some rich kids who are bored and have nothing better to do than to dress up in fancy costumes.

I have little sympathy for them. I think it would be much more effective to erect moss walls and plant some trees. Spending less money on buying new clothes, like those costumes, actually would spare us some carbon footprint.

I really do not have to have a bad conscience about my lifestyle causing the planet harm, I live simply without causing health hazards to anyone, so I do not need to feel bad. It’s about changing lifestyles not causing more problems.

Asking councils to change heating and lighting systems to residential blocks would be more effective than blocking traffic.

 

The right to exist

I think all plant and animal life should get a right to exist to stop extinction and obliteration of natural occurances like forests.

Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg
By Self-portrait by the depicted Macaca nigra female. See article. – Wtop.com (archive; cropped and denoised by uploader), Public Domain, Link

The New Scientist suggest giving nature Human Rights but that is not likely to succeed. There were people who tried to give a monkey human rights to protect the monkey’s picture from being used for copyright purposes.

Giving plants, animals, minerals, etc. the right to exist would help a fixed preservation of earthly life as it is today.

What about the argument of evolution, if we would not change things, probably new life would not evolve?

Yet all evolution so far evolved with the healthy environment intact, without the healthy environment, we would not get much chance to evolve much further. I think we need to bring legislation into action that prevents further destruction of the environment. We do have the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in Britain but there is no world-wide legislation. Brazil doesn’t want to preserve the rainforest as it stifles their economy.

Good luck Greta

I feel much more relaxed about Greta Thunberg’s trip to the US, since I’ve heard on a news story that actually one of her parents will be on the boat. It is a 60 x 12 foot boat without a toilet and amenities we are just used to.

It can’t do any harm to keep the discussion about climate change warm by constantly reporting about that trip of Greta.

What also interests me is how much Greta may miss her luxury home comforts during the journey for the sake of fighting climate change.

Lets hope all goes well.

I also hope that it will be easy to follow the media reports.

Enlightenment

I love a book full of statistics. It saves me compiling them and luckily there are always plenty of published number crunches to relate to.

When I started reading Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now, I started to feel, he was a little too simplistic and tries to make a case that the rich make the live of the poor easier and better.

I do however like the slant on Humanism in the under-title. And whilst I am now on the Environment chapter, I am starting to get interested.

Frightening though the samples Steven Pinker gives by quoting Paul Watson who wants to radically reduce humanity to fewer than one billion.

sand desert blue sky egypt

Photo by David McEachan on Pexels.com

I think that is a very dangerous approach. I belief that the Egyptian Pharaoh culture simply died because the Egyptians spent too many of their scarce resources  on building the pyramids. With the technology available at the time, most of the human labour available must have gone into shaping those stones and putting them into the triangular shapes that built the Pyramids. People didn’t have enough time to spend on planting, harvest and dealing with environmental emergencies or attacks from other forces. Nor did they have the time to develop better technogies.

If we reduce humanity to the bare existence level, we will suffer similar consequences by not being able to sustain technology, which was only able to develop because we have gotten so much spare resources laying around.

Our lifestyles now are becoming increasingly inflexible. We rely more and more on the same habits to do all things each day. We regulate every spare niche of our lives with increasingly complicated laws. This inflexibility in itself is a major hindrance on making real progress. We cannot possibly maintain all that technology with few people.

person holding save our planet sign

Photo by Markus Spiske temporausch.com on Pexels.com

We cannot possibly change our world by leaving it the way it is and try to reduce our carbon foot prints alone.

The fact that Amazon rainforest countries demand the right to develop their lands puts a big dampener on our enthusiams, which rely on the existence of the rainforest.

We need to come to an international agreement that we either re-settle all peoples who reside in current rain forest regions and settle them in other nations. Or another possibility is forcing all nations to have a certain amount of forest areas within each country.

The latter option will require a lot of loss of sovereignity of each nation on the planet. Whilst we cannot even cope with Europe at present, how are we going to enter world-wide agreements?

One major source of pollution is travel and air travel causes more air pollution than previously thought.

We need to radically change values and the calculation of wealth from purely being a plus in the bank acount to being a whollistic view on positive contribution to global wealth including the health of the planet.

Humanism is the best way to achieve this because we cannot continually kick each other’s backsides but believing that God loves us all whilst we destroy each other and the planet. For what, a better afterlife? The Egyptians beliefed in a great afterlife.

 

Can’t invade the rainforest

Just to follow on my previous post about the rainforest, I want to specialise in particular on how education forms the brain and is responsible for the thought processes taught in school.

I am not saying I hate those who have been misled but I am saying change the way we educate our children to stop that specialisation in short-term profit thinking.

It was perfectly possible to invade Iraq, Afthanistan, Germany and any other similar countries to stop genocide and war but it is not possible to invade the rainforest to stop deforestation. We cannot drop bombs onto trees to save the trees, the way we can drop bombs onto buildings and people to stop murderous regimes.

What human evolution sees at present is a part-time brain development, which sees people specialise in certain subjects.

We see people specialising only in their region and making as much profit as possible within and for their region without taking into account that the whole planet needs to function to make regional development sustainable.

Yet, education in developed countries hasn’t even touched what is required to maintain our planet.

Private education stupefies students to think about making profit, lead a country to obtain certain political goals, which are mainly profit related whilst state education or social education concentrates on wider issues like social responsibility.

I am a vehement opponent of private versus state education systems. I am in total favour of only one education system teaching all.

If we teach social and planetary responsibility in schools we will very soon get to the point that currently only each country that has rainforest within actually owns this rainforest.

That is simply how our legal minds work these days, you need to own and if you own you have total power over what you own.

British elite political thinking currently wants to turn away from collective responsibiliy by leaving the EU. But it doesn’t stop at the EU, it stops at the point where the whole earths’ ecosystem is in danger because we do not own the rainforest together as a collectively important earth environment.

There is no other way as creating earth collective ownership if we want to preserver any type of natural self-regulation on the planet. Even as EU states we all need to work towards earths preservation with rules that apply to all nations.

We need to get away from our indivindualistic profit making mentality and work together as human beings who have only one planet to live on.

the rainforest

Is without question one of the most importent assets of our planet. It is concentrated on various geographical locations. Lets take Brazil here as an example.

green leafed trees under blue sky

The typical British countrydise, cleared of forest, ready for farming. Photo by Lisa Fotios on Pexels.com

Of course us developed nations we have already cleared a lot of our forests and developed our lands. We in Britain even talk about becoming self-sufficient farming-wise to justify us leaving the EU without a deal.

For that of course we need to farm the land and clear probably even more forest.

We really do love to rely on the rain forest. The untouched and virgin rain forest, that same rain forest that saves our planet.

But what about those nationas that are couched within the rainforest areas. Nations like Brazil. Do their citizens not have the right to farm, to develp the land, to get skills-based jobs that are based within their national borders.

scenic view of rainforest

Rainforst    Photo by Arnie Chou on Pexels.com

Whilst we here in Britain demand that we can become independent of others, we do expect nations within the rainforest regions to leave that forest and just not devleop, to depend on others, help others, so that we developed countries can stay developing ourselves.

What are the nationals within the rainforest countries supposed to be doing?

Nobody has thought about this and I think that just shows how stupid our privately educated politicians and business leaders are because all they can think of is themselves.

It is an international problem and it needs nations to work together. But of course our political leaders only think about Brexit and becoming indendent from Europe and use the resources of other nations to bolster our own wealth.

The rainforest? The rainforest is depended upon that it stays as it is. So what about putting that thinking cap on?

The hinges of Brexit

There are several dimensions to this

  • Political independence
  • Commercial autonomy
  • Environmental concerns

Historically there were during

  • the 1600 – 95% of war between European nations
  • the 1700 – 75% of war …..
  • the 1800 – 45 % of war
  • 2000 – 0% conflict so far

Considering that the UK government pledged to cut Greenhouse gas emmission to zero by 2050, it seems illogical to leave the EU now.

Leaving the EU and having trade deals with further away countries, would mean considerably more transport of goods, more travel.

The UK is a water logged country and relies on either planes or boats for travel. There is only one land (under-water, tunnel) form of transport that doesn’t rely on flying or boats and that is via the Euro tunnel.

With increasing weather instability, transport by container ships will be endangered. There will also be a reduction of flights because it is very unlikely that the air travel industry will come up with a distinct change in airplane design that is more environmentally friendly.

Yet Britain relies for a large part on air travel. There are now calls to stop inland air travel but the train fares are too expensive to make that affordable.

Whilst I do not suggest that we should have to put up with any political system in Europe, just to get our trade, we need to seriously consider the implication of a break from Europe from the points of environmental change.

London_waterlevels

Flooding predictions for London for around 2080

What voters deserve is a clear planning procedure to include the worsening weather conditions, the increased demands on immigration because unstable political systems in Asian and African countries as well as increased flooding of large areas will decrease landmass available for people in those countries and they all will attempt to emigrate to saver regions.

Whilst our own coastlines suffer from erosion and raising sea levels will eventually encroach on our land.

A strong European council will be an assurance that political systems in European countries will not break down and revert to undemocratic methods.

Leaving Europe now without a deal makes us very vulnerable as we will be more dependant on trade deals with distant nations, when the transport of goods may be disturbed by worsening weather.

Being an influencer in Europe and remain as such will do us more favour than just leaving without a deal.

Whilst large swathes of English land owners want to break off from Europe because they have got the land to support themselves, the rest of us including London, Wales and Scotland feel very uneasy.

Of course theoretically the UK could manage on its own but the right-wing nationalists have a strong history of violent racism and that is what makes it an impossible thought to even embrace. The Jo Cox murder proved what right-wing terrorists are capable of.

I would say that the threat of war from an unstable future Europe together with worsening weather conditions would definitely threaten the future of our civilisation. Our armies would be severely hampered by the weather and our domestic situation would become severely unstable too. Further away allies may not be able to reach. Even D-Day had to be delayed because of bad weather and weather is going to be much worse. So we have to be very sensible and build alliances whilst it is possible to do so and prevent a shift to the right and into facism.

For these reasons I sincerly hope that a new Conservative Prime minister will be stopped from suspending parliament to push through a no deal Brexit.

 

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,819 hits