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?

Nature fights back

The German E-coli strain is a new one, so scientists belief. A new strain of MRSA bug has been found in cows that infects humans too.

My theory is that this planet has some kind of inbuilt survival mechanism and if anyone species endangers the very balance of the planet, that the complicated chemical and biological mechanisms that function on the planet, come up with new ways to reduce humanity, which threatens to imbalance the earth’s ecology.

I tried to device a mathematical formula that can predict when the balance is out of focus and it can be predicted that events will happen to disrupt our daily life, may that be geographical or physical.

I am certain that humanity is unable to follow a  natural ‘knowing when to stop’ instinct.

Amazon environment activists killed

From this article that reports the murder of 2 prominent Amazon rain forest environmental activists it becomes clear that Brazil eased legislature on de-forestation of this important region of the world.

The Prince’s Rainforest Project raises awareness of the international importance of some regions of the world for the whole planet.

I think that countries who hold such international treasures,such as rainforest should be subject to an international panel of experts before they can make any legislation that affects those internationally important assets such as rainforest. The status of the Amazon rainforest will affect this whole planet and the earth warming we are already subjected to. Brazil now eased laws on deforestation. If each country in that region allows similar laws, we could see the disappearance of the Amazon rainforest within decades and that could have devastating results for the planet.

I am not sure why not more pressure is being put on World Health Organisations or other similar bodies to found an International organisation that has input on countries, making it compulsory to seek international approval before national legislation can be changed.

We are definitely sitting all in the same boat, I mean on the same planet and national sovereignty must come second when planet’s needs are overriding.

The cycle of waste

I can count myself lucky that I do not have one of those fancy double counting water meters, that do not only meter the incoming but also measure the outgoing water. Why, is that? It is because I am wondering whether it is worth recycling cans and jars that take a lot of water and effort to clean prior to recycling.

Would we not do more damage to the environment by too much water usage or would we do more damage to the environment by not recycling metal cans and glass jars?

I went to bring some old metal to the scrap metal dealer and ended up with some money in my pocket but when I have to clean out old cans and put them into the recycling, it costs me money and I do not even get a discount for recycling when I purchase a new product to replace the old one.

Especially products like peanut butter or chocolate jars, and even cans of beans, take a longish while to clean before the containers are fit for the recycling container. So is it worth it for me to heat water to loosen up the fatty peanut butter, so that I can scrape out the jar and clean it?

It costs me electricity, water and detergent to do so, not to mention the time spent doing it.  I am almost certain that many busy working people rather bin a can than find the time to clean it.

Yet my local scrap dealer was only too happy to give me cash for metal. I wonder whether it is not cheaper to crush up and collect old tins to bring them to the scrap metal merchant, who does not need clean metal to process it.

Just when I am in the mood to moan about the waste, I had to remove food from containers to compact them or they would have taken too much space in my freezer. Why pack food items in containers that are 3 times too big in the first place?

What would be a really good idea in my view, is the recycling of old furniture and especially those wood-chip, flat-pack buried, icons of old furniture we see often draped around waste bins. There is an awful lot of forest in the Amazon but there is also an awful lot of wood waste in our bins each and every day.


The ring-fencing of local funds is the biggest problem in local authority funding and also the ring-fencing of product and service specific finance is impossible with today’s global finance schemes.

Monies are shifted from one project to another and what is paid for directly is not used for direct local services to be ploughed back to the source of the income.

The local jurisdictions cannot function with international money transfers and as long as there are no laws that guarantee ring-fencing for locally produced funds the local economies  are grieving the loss of business that will permanently stay away.

Today’s finance reporting hardly ever mentions these very basic and essential facts of local economies and service provisions and it is absolutely essential to get to grip with this matter or we see a devastation of local economies shifting from locality to locality, depending on where global finance fancies to invest in. How should it help a small local business to be able to borrow when there is no sustainable economy to trade in?

To you and me, in practical terms this means that rent monies collected by local authorities are given to the government to finance the war and local estates suffer loss of services. To customers of companies it means that pension funds can be invested into something else or even harvested to channel  money to elsewhere and in companies, monies collected from one service are used to prop up another.

Companies can export all monies they like to other regions of the world and so locally raised taxes are only a temporary income for fiscal purposes or as long as the company likes the trading conditions. What this does to local people is the main question because families do not just exist for the duration of a trading year, they build on generations of off-spring and social networks are depending on a social fibre that has to be functioning to be healthy.

It’s not all finance because often the mental health of social groups depends on the ability to trade and/or earn a honest living and not to live on handouts because the company has decided to move elsewhere. It is a matter for the law to make provision for this problem as companies’ only function these days is to make profit and no other social responsibilities are expected. The third sector finance in local matters depends also on trading and profitiering from local ecnomies. People cannot get a relationship to finance if that finance is remote.

The division of monies away from local social responsibilities is the biggest stumbling block in building long-lasting local economies that are also socially satisfying.  In ancient cultures, even as recent as Roman times, the local economy always sprung up where the people lived but that is no longer the case to the detriment of the people I should say.  The larger those multi-million pound companies grow the less are they sustainable because costs are swallowing up sustainable profits and those profits are gained on short-term investments that has a high cost of sales ratio as springing up those companies is expensive because of branding and other issues.

Today we see failing companies taken over by others, which means that all branding items have to be changed each time at huge cost, the matter of keeping the company going is more expensive than the actual income from sales revenue.

Today’s governments expect social responsibility from companies but those companies have huge costs to meet that are unsustainable in the long run. The short-term and the long term responsibility is causing a clash in today’s parliamentary democracies coupled with company laws that prevent long-term responsibility as well and now the EU is wondering why no country wants to contribute to the EU tax burden it wants to impose.  International finance doesn’t bow to local jurisdcitions and we have a mish-mash of problems that is  incoherrent and non-sensical.

I love the forest

The rainforest belt around the earth

The rain-forest belt around the earth

One of the best rain forest pictures you will ever see and I will not copy for you to look at.
I love the argument that the forest is worth more alive than dead but when do they actually stop cutting it down?

As if we are as a species on this planet are not in enough trouble already, when it gets really hot it will be to late to feel sorry for cutting down all the tress, destroying the fauna and the flora.

It shows that not everything can be turned into money, not every inch of available earth can be utilised to sell and turn into profit. That is probably what makes all those entrepreneurs amongst us who want to cultivate the whole of this planet for their purposes mad, that there are things that are better untouched.

Rainforest in pictoresque display of waterfall

The worst idea is to cut down the trees and plant edible plants or plants that can be used for bio-energy because it is just no environmental benefit in this at all. We need the natural environment to allow the earth to do what it is best doing, turn around, create the climate with its natural mechanisms that we must not destroy.

There is now very little rain forest left, as can be seen on the above map and even in Africa tribal leaders are given literally peanuts for very valuable forest areas where the trees are turned into furniture. We must stop this now.

I love the forest.

The Prince’s Rainforest Project

Please watch this video about the good work the Prince’s Rainforest Project does trying to protect our rainforests and save them from destruction. Destroying the rainforests is costing us the earth.

Blog Stats

  • 55,006 hits
%d bloggers like this: