Future of the Environment

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.]