Bad primal answers

The answer is always the same

  • less unemployment
  • better economy

Yet, the employment never gets compared to what type of jobs those in employment actually do in relation to the carbon footprint that their jobs actually achieve.

planet earth

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

To reduce our carbon foot print we need to change the things we produce and that will take more effort and cost than this government has failed to address.

Prime Minister’s questions has had only one question about reducing carbon foot print and that is about heating systems.

Yet all those answers relating to employment statistics are merely that. Number of people who do some job. That may be

  • producing single use plastic
  • working in coal mines
  • making goods that have a large carbon foot print.

There is absolutely no conscience about changes needed. Those changes may not allow a seamless transition with profit margins not dipping. It may not be possible to continue running the country on private finance only.

Even though Trump yesterday mentioned that he does not want to believe in the doom and gloom and that 3 billion trees worldwide will solve all our problems. But that is more than naive.

These profit oriented leaders only think about the clink and clank of profit in the tills. They make so much money they probably think, if it comes to the worst, they can buy their way out with a rocket to Mars.

That’s the only reason they keep the economy going as it is, so that they can make enough money to invest in space travel because once they ruined this planet, they think they can just move on to another one.

So what the Prime Minister should do at Prime Minister’s Question time, when he answers questions by saying how good employment rates are, he should state how much of those jobs are environmentally friendly.

Human evolution or putting earth first

Humanity has reached an important stage in its evolution and the marker is not whether people are meat-eaters or not it is how they related to the opposite or same gender. But all this has to be related to our environment too.

I think there is a rough split across the board, which can be distinct by the way women (child-bearing ones) are treated by the opposite sex.

The societies, which treat women as child-bearers, home-makers and dependants on the dominant male are distinct from the ones where this male domination is being phased out and in those societies the border between genders is also becoming less distinct.

Of course gender markers come hand in hand with religious beliefs and those soceities most religious also generally have the most distinct policies towards women in that women are not allowed to have their own choices, have to live to please dominant males and be either seen as child bearers or sexual objects.

This policy goes right across religions Muslim, Jew and Christians.

The least variation of female discrimination can be found in Muslim-type societies.

Obviously to me, that many religions have similar threads but where the gods are just claled different names but they all have been established at similar times in history, shows that the creation of those modern religions was a policy that had been developed at that point in time. I think leaders of history were much more coordinated as we are lead to believe.

Back to the point of gender policy. People tend to drift away from classical religion the more scientific understanding they have about the world. Obviously the relgious books, having been written over 2.000 or around 2.000 years ago has an impact on our understanding. We can no longer connect to the logic applied and in fact many bible stories are seen as unlawful these days if they are quoted as a remedy to today’s problems.

We now have civil partnerships instead of marriage, a very important marker of our evolution.

People can change gender if they wish and even parents can refuse to have a gender assigned to those babies born with both genders.

Just imagine we could self-fertilize if we stop to eradicate those humans born with both sex organs. Though I am not certain whether that would not lead to genetic mutilation.

What is certain that if we have any type of life-form that this life form will want to survive in the environment that it can live in.

Yet so many people today do not care about the environment any longer but only for the profit they can make for themselves.

We need to make a stark choice, to either curb those who just want to make profits and stash the cash or whether we want to promote choices that save our planet for us to live on.

Banking on finding another planet are pipe-dreams and very unrealistic. Those solutions are promoted by those who make all that money and rather spend it on looking at other planets or living in space, rather than make less money but save our planet.

To sum up, human evolution has to coincide with a clear choice. Those who simply see women as child-bearing and home-making instruments do nothing towards saving this planet and those who use women to support policies that enable distruction of our current planet help us neither.

People have to decide whatever our civil laws decide is right for our human rights, we need to decide whether we put this planet first.

There is total indecision whether the billionnaires of this world can continue to create huge carbon emissions on earth but are allowed to use all their resources for space exploration. Because that is what’s happening right now.

We’ve had political parties called

the Britain First group was a fascist club. But we do need a political movement that puts earth first. We always see our home as our castle, we need to see the earth as our home.

Earth First was founded in 1979 and I have never heard of them previously as our media does not push them, though there are many branches of that movement throughout the world now. I shall look into this as I have come across that by using pure logic and a thought stream that led me to finding out about them.

 

kicking cans

If the promise to leave the EU is as strong as the promise to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050 are of the same strenght, then we can assume that this government is just a promise but no action government.

What we get are sincere, deep voices, manly promises, but nothing changes, really.

Greenpeace thought of getting the grey cells of some politicians into motion but that didn’t have any effect, other than being pushed out of the event.

Action speaks louder than words but words are all what some people can come up with. The dinners, the speeches, the outfits, the glamour.

I am not certain that our politicians these days have the mental capacity or even flexibility to actually change anything that moves them out of their current comfort zones.

I don’t care whether we get Brexit or not, but what I care about is that our quality of life increases.

And I don’t believe those who say they are so totally Green because they all use medications and modern technology that was borne out of dirty production methods and using fossil fuels. They all have cars and use flights.

We need to start somewhere and how about changing the way we fund and perceive our schools?

Why not make sure that all schools are enabling our pupils and future generations to breathe in clean air? That all our pupils get plenty of palying fields and green spaces?

If we really want to change our lives, we need to change the way we calculate profits, taxes and distribution of wealth, ownership. In fact we need to redefine the meaning of wealth to include

  • health
  • environment

You cannot sell a walk in the forest for profit, you cannot sell the rainforest because it needs to be wild and just as it is. You cannot sell the ocean because it needs to stay and we cannot sell the north or south pole because we need it just as it is.

Yet there are two things, which are wars and space exploration, which create more carbon emission than a lot of other items. Also the production of white goods and anything that uses metals is highly contageous. Calculate your carbon footprint here.

Lets think about that for a while.

Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using machines is simply not creating the bio diversity we need to keep the environment healthy and evacuating from earth to another planet is nothing but wishful dreaming.

I must admit, I just love living in our civilisation, the freedom that women can have would be not even half as good in a primitive low carbon society.

Yet there is still the possibility of an educated low carbon society, something we probably all dream about. Articles 25 and 26 of the Universal Human Rights deal with health and education whilst the vast majority of paragraphs deal with legal definitions of personal freedoms.

Perhaps that declaration of Human Rights, should include taking care of our planet as an obligation and right for all of us.

Asteroids might be connected

Having seen the big hype over Asteroid 2012 DA14,and then read the problems a smaller bunch of Asteroids caused in Russia, Urals, preceding the passing of DA14, it seems to me the 2 could be connected.

The Russian meteorites were kind of parallel to DA14 and could be some kind of paired moon type of occurrence. But this would mean that Asteroids could have brothers or moons just like planets have. Maybe some physicists could look into this because they got the means to do so.

What we can see is the damage a low flying asteroid can do to our buildings and that is extremely concerning. Imagine that happens in a built up city area with lots of window and skyscrapers.

I think we have to be extremely careful not to disrupt the natural rhythm of the planets and their paths for example the moon. The moon is at a certain distance to the earth. With each cycle it regulates the water content of this planet. Our seas have tides and if that magnetic field is not working in the prescribed order it could mean havoc for us. Yet we keep on shooting satellites around us, which could alter the force fields in place.

Also nuclear tests on earth could have a huge impact on planetary physics.

a breach of trust

If it wasn’t so serious, I would use the well-known Abba song, “its so funny how we don’t talk anymore” to describe the recent leaks of military classified information on the open web, namely Wikileaks. The BBC reports about this on a regular basis.

It is plainly completely irresponsible to disclose classified military documents on the open web for all to see. It works against the western military forces and those trying to establish democracy in those nations concerned like Iraq and also Afghanistan and it endangers military personnel and installations.

It’s so funny how the army and other organisations do anything to swear their personnel to secrecy and how outsiders can disclose such information by using modern technology, whereby the technology breaches all known borders that usually contain such information. A so-called wild-cat action by those wanting to disturb peace efforts of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That shows that war can take many shapes and forms of deceit, in this instance electronic multiplication without authorisation on an open platform. Whilst recently a computer hacker was jailed for hacking into US army computers, searching for evidence of aliens; there is definitely a lack of law to deal with electronic multiplication of secret material on an open platform across jurisdictions.

This would be a good opportunity to develop international copyright and privacy laws to do with publication.

Seeing is believing

Just found a lot of recordings on UFO research and so far I never believed that UFO’s existed, simply because I never saw one. My husband believed in it but that subject was one of our best marriage arguments.

In one of those clips it says that several supernatural civilisations are studying earth continuously.

Now to the filming. When I drove in a car at night, I could in the window often see sensations that could have made to look like UFO’s if one took a picture of the reflections of light in the night-time car window.

I have also heard that UFO like flying objects can be powered by copper coils around the inside of t he object and that accelerates to incredible speed and that the American military builds such craft experimental, that might explain sightings of such objects.

Watch the films for yourself and make up your own phantasms about it.

Add on 3.3.11 Today’s picture on MSN shows a weather formation that looks just like a UFO and explains those round lights in the sky as natural phenomenon.

New exo planets found

Looking at the graph provided on this report about the NASA Kepler telescope discoveries, it seems obvious that the further out they look the larger the planets get and the more gas  they contain the larger they are too. Science made simple.

Blog Stats

  • 53,457 hits