Re: Inconsistencies

Paul,

I feel what you mainly ignore is the crises brought about by worldwide
topsoil loss which is increasingly pushing us towards desertification. 
Along with predictions that overall ecosystems decline, which will
continue to be exerbated by global climate change, will make much of the
world largely inhabitable in 30 years or less. So we can either do things
voluntarily or we will be forced to do so by natural forces. 

Right now, 29% of the earth's surface is used for raising beef cattle.
Predictions are that as the American model is pushed in Asia, this will
increase to 38% of the earth's surface as beef-eating increases there. 
And, if the true cost of raising beef for market were to be included in
the retail price, beef would have to retail at about $35.00 a pound.    

Most civilizations in the past have collapsed due to loss of topsoil. The
manner in which the large agribusinesses farm, coupled with cattle
raising, is causing severe topsoil loss worldwide. If there is no topsoil
there is no food production. We are currently using the world's resources
at a rate of 40% faster than they can be replenished.  

Can you understand that we either change our behavior or we are out of
here as the human race?  Our grandchildren will never have a chance at
life as we have.  We are already experiencing water shortages in many
parts of the world.  This is only going to get worse.  The quality of
life is going to decline dramatically over the next couple decades.  Some
scientists are already predicting that it is too late for us to do
anything -- that we have gone beyond the point of no return.  

And, I have to say that frankly, although I still keep trying to create
change, I don't feel there is any hope for us.  And mainly because most
people just don't seem to get it that we cannot go on living the way we
do. The earth's resources are like a bank account -- you can't keep
drawing out of the account when there is already a negative balance. At
some point you have to begin conservation and restoration measures. Due
to past damage, these measures may be quite severe. 

The only way that I see we can accomplish anything, quickly, is for
people at the community level to begin restoration measures in their
respective communities. Each bioregion or each ecosystem requires a
different restorative treatment. Some, not all community members know
what is needed in their communities; they understand their land, their
climate, their ecosystems and know what to do to restore them and how to
teach others in their regions to do so.. National and state governments
don't know 'crap' about these things, if you'll pardon my way of phrasing
this. They apply this 'one size fits all' and it simply doesn't work.
It's one of the reasons why things are in such a mess now. 

You know, Paul, economies and world trade only exists in our minds. It
isn't real -- it's a game that's been made up largely to line the pockets
of wealthy people at the expense of the poor and the environment. And
people have the ability to change this game anytime they so desire. The
trouble is it takes getting out of one's comfort zone and assuming
responsibility for one's actions.  Something few of us are willing to do.
 Life to us here in the developed world is a steak, a football game, an
SUV, kids in the right school, live in the right part of town and you get
the right job, which makes one a success.  The problem is that this
so-called 'success' makes the human race a failed experiment when you get
right down to it.  

Meanwhile, down in Guatemala there are about 200,000 people who are
crowded into the last of the supposedly 'protected' Peten Rainforest. 
These people have been forced off of their land by the cattle ranchers
and they eat the rats they catch in the jungle and which they roast over
wood fires made from what's left of the protected area.  The government
does nothing because they don't know what to do.  In Brazil, the street
kids, who live in tunnels under the city of Rio and sniff glue to keep
from feeling hunger pains, are regularly rounded up and shot so they
won't disturb the tourists who come there. In Africa people are dying of
Aids by the millions because U.S. pharmaceutical companies refuse to
provide medicine for them at a price that Africans can afford. 

You are right, Paul, when your write:  'but trying to force all of us to
give up meat or to grow our bananas in greenhouses is something else
again' because I know most of the people in the developed world will turn
their back on the those in the developing world who are suffering so
terribly, in order to keep their 'luxury items.' This  makes me sick at
my stomach and my heart aches.  And it makes me ashamed for those whose
greed seems to know no limits.  

And if you want to keep on making lame excuses for people who refuse to
make sacrifices in the face of the greatest crisis that humanity has ever
known; one in which the fate of the human race is at stake, then please
take it somewhere else. I've heard it enough.. Hunter gatherer groups and
agriculturists survived for centuries long before world trade came into
being.  And the only people who may survive this time are those who live
in far away places such as Patagonia.  Modern man is far too weak. 

marguerite   


On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:44:14 -0400 Paul Riesz <priesz@netline.cl> writes:
> To Marguerite:
> You promote 2 sets of ideas, that are incompatible:
> On the one hand you defend the exclusive privilege of communities 
> to
> decide their own affairs and to start initiatives to attend 
> regional,
> national or global problems,
> while on the other hand you make a series of proposals,  which would 
> be
> violently resisted by many communities and could only be implemented 
> by
> very powerful central authorities.
> 
> Furthermore you do not want to admit, that some measures might be 
> very
> useful in moderation, while very destructive, if applied too 
> radically.
> 
> Let me give some examples:
> While it might be possible and useful to promote a greater degree 
> of
> producing food and other necessities locally and to somewhat reduce 
> our
> dependency on trade, is impossible to completely eliminate trade at 
> the
> present time.
> 
> As to changing our habits of consumption: promoting less waste and
> ostentation is certainly desirable, but trying to force all of us 
> to
> give up meat or to grow our bananas in greenhouses is something 
> else
> again
> Cattle raising: in future (maybe sooner than we think)it might be
> necessary to slowly reduce this practice in highly productive
> agricultural lands, in order to be able to provide more grains for
> masses of hungry people in Africa. But even then it could not be 
> done
> everywhere, there are many regions where raising cattle or sheep is 
> the
> only possible way of using the land.
> Examples: alpine meadows or the arid regions of Patagonia.
> 
> Now let us consider technological advances:
> Whether your views on automated production, nanotechnolgy etc. shall 
> at
> some future time prevail and replace our present systems is 
> debatable,
> but forcing all of us to give up NOW most goods produced with more
> conventional means is unjustified and could only be implemented by 
> a
>  or communist dictatorship.
> 
> Conclusion:
> Since trade is going to be indispensable in the foreseeable future,, 
> we
> need to have fairer trade rules, if we want to  improve the lot of 
> poor
> people world-wide. 
> 
> Regards             Paul
> 


Marguerite Hampton
Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute
EcoPilgrim@juno.com
http://tii-kokopellispirit.org