This article was not published when it was sent to various publications. Could it be that despite it being an opinion (and stated as such), it was far too true for them to dare to publish?
You be the judge.
Views expressed herein are liable to change and amendment on basis
of personal growth and development as well as proven facts supporting or
rejecting stated opinions. Freedom of speech (that is the freedom to say,
write, draw or video any opinions and proven facts) is considered of prime
importance. Opposing opinions are accepted only in the form of constructive
criticism or dialogue.
Future of the environment
This particular post is beginning with a lot of assumptions because
at the moment the author cannot be bothered to explain the reasons behind them.
However most of these assumptions are based on publically accepted theories and
some proven facts for which no initiating reference can be found at this time.
Assumptions:
· The older generations are greedy and
indulged themselves expediting the destruction of the environment.
· The older generation preaches about
harmonising with nature
· The older generation are all about
self-indulgence and suffer from an ever intensifying inferiority complex and
have to generate profits at all costs in compensation for their lack of brains
and metaphoric balls.
Why should we care about the future of the environment?
Everyone who has ever studied Chemistry at A-levels (I know it is
now called GCEs or something but I am much older than the “post-modern”
generation but not as old as the generation I am blaming) will easily recognise
this simple rule:
“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” – Mrs Poonam
Mahindra (As taught to me by my chemistry teacher at the time).
Well it can be said that this stands true for life in general but
most particularly for the one thing that man has replaced god (or any
divinity/ies) with: Money. Due to this worship of money the rich keep finding
ways to keep the poor, poorer while they gorge on the cash they generate. For
the rich believe that it is a Darwinian world: Survival of the fittest (in
terms of adaptability and cleverness). To a certain extent they are not wrong
however they take it to such an extreme that in fact they should be called
extremists with ulterior motives and hidden agendas.
Allow me to elaborate with a very oblique example. The developed
first world nations are mostly considered the rich nations therefore henceforth
they will be referred to as the rich while other lowly territories will be
considered the opposite of rich for the sake of demonstration in this article.
The rich nations suck fossil fuels from all over the world (mainly that one
region which they are terrified of or so their media portrays the region). The
rich led the industrial revolution and pumped (probably) billions of greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere creating holes in the protective O-zone layer.
Eventually they realised their mistake, but rather than solve the problem they
decided to cover it up like immature kids. They now have 2 scientific
communities each opposing the other. One says global warming is happening
despite the natural sinusoidal climate change (because global warming is
occurring exponentially faster than natural and even without it the weather
would have been shifting to prepare for another ice age). The other says global warming is nonsense and
that we should carry on as is (mostly the greedy people in need of larger
profits to attempt compensating for the lack of sex they have with their
significant others probably).
Returning to the point; the rich consume the largest amount of
fossil fuels while releasing the highest amount of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere, yet they preach the development of renewable technologies. This is
a two pronged attack by the older generation of the rich: a) this way they can
develop a system to be self-sufficient (and possibly export energy to the not
rich at exorbitant prices) and b) it provides them a way of continuing their
rampage of greed and self-indulgence.
They don’t care about the environment and it is evident in the fact
that the rich preach a lot about the renewable technologies and are even developing
them as this is being written but they don’t share a single piece of advanced
technology with the not-rich if it is not profitable. That is the net outcome
despite supposedly large efforts of charity work and service for the not-rich
by the rich who on some level need something to keep themselves busy. Thus the
overall effect is that of hubris and vice by the rich as if they are the divine
(maybe that is how the Greek, Norse, etc. mythological pantheons came into
being!).
It seems like the rich although highly capable of changing the
world around are too proud for the task, talking the talk but not walking the
line whereas, walking the walk would earn them the true respect of the not-rich
which is unlike the respect born of fear and loathing due to exploitation and
invasion. As a very “environmentally friendly” friend of mine once said: “They
rape and rape and rape the earth without worry or even thought of consequence.
Then they rape the planet some more just to make sure that is has been raped.
If they forget that they have done the deed, they rape the poor planet another
time for reassurance.” (I am omitting most of the colourful language for my
sake). This friend loves grass and believes it helps him grow brain cells but that
is a different topic altogether.
Even from a humanitarian standpoint, this is our only habitable
piece of rock in the entire universe (and some would like to add “at the
moment”, but my argument stands even then). The question then becomes simply why
should we the younger generation to whom the whole environmentalism is preached
(particularly of the not-rich places) not follow in the esteemed footsteps of
the older generation who destroyed it in the first place and now refuse to do
anything about it besides passing it on (particularly those from the rich
places)?
At the moment it is the humble opinion of this author that if the
entirety of knowledge and information was shared equally and globally in a
completely transparent and truthful manner, then we could potentially reduce
the accelerated pace of global warming to a level closer to that of the natural
construct. [The first bit of knowledge that should be destroyed by spamming the
world is that of weapons simply because by disseminating and making a piece of
information public it’s value is decreased to less than zero thereby reducing
any harm from it.]
