Against ecology: How eco-friendly behavior can be harmful!

Advertisements
Photo by GEORGE DESIPRIS from Pexels

A new theory suggests that we think of our relationship with the environment like a social exchange, leading to the belief that ‘environmentally friendly’ behavior can compensate for ‘harmful’ behavior. And research reveals that thinking like this could have harmful effects on the environment after all.

This is because we may believe that ecological behavior cancels-out non-ecological behavior, while this is obviously not the case. In reality, all consumption causes permanent environmental harm, and green options are at best less harmful rather than restorative. And unfortunately studies show that when so-called ‘eco-friendly’ items are added to a set of ‘conventional’ items, people believe the environmental impact of the whole set is unchanged, or even reduced.

“For instance, some groups have found that people intuitively think the environmental burden of a hamburger and an organic apple in combination is lower than the environmental burden of the hamburger alone, or that the total emissions of a car pool remain the same when hybrid cars are added to the pool,” highlights Sörqvist, one of the researchers.

This leads us to pursue all sorts of misguided quick fixes to assuage our eco-guilt.

“People might purchase some extra groceries because they are ‘eco-labeled’; think that they can justify jetting abroad for vacation because they have been cycling to work; or take longer showers because they’ve reduced the water temperature. And companies – nations, even – claim to balance greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees or by paying for carbon offsets through the European Union Emission Trading Scheme.

“Meanwhile, the best thing for the environment would of course be for us to consume less overall,” stresses Sörqvist. (1)

A research stating nothing more than the obvious.

The solution to a problem is not a solution to the problem.

But the nullification of the problem itself.

There is no need to be eco-friendly.

Because there is no cosmos be friendly to.

You are that cosmos!

You are not part of anything.

You ARE everything!

Try to do good.

And you will end up doing something wrong.

Because the only way to be good is not through doing something.

But through doing nothing.

And letting the universe tell you what is good.

Stand by.

And let that sparrow die.

It will be the best thing you did for it…

ScienceAlert, censorship, climate hysteria, scientific “consensus”…

Advertisements
Author Ozzie Zehner self-censored the American edition of his environmental book, Green Illusions (Source: Wikipedia)

Today the science news web site ScienceAlert issued an impressive announcement in its Facebook page: It urged its followers not to engage with “climate deniers” which it called “trolls”. Instead, it told them to report those “trolls” so that they will be banned from the page if they utter any argument against climate change! (1)

So there you are.

A scientific matter is now part of censorship.

When was the last time something like that happened?

Even Enlightenment proponents, called for the tolerance to different opinion!

But today’s era if far from enlightened. Today we live in the era of scientism, shallowness and the triumph of ignorant majorities. Majorities which could never find the right answer to any of the great philosophical or scientific problems, but which now feel obliged to support a specific opinion because… science! and because… facts!

So scientific that it needs 16-year-olds to defend it.

So factual that it needs censorship to be imposed.

Think.

When was the last time someone used such techniques to argue that 1+1 = 2?

Welcome to the era of Enlightenment!

So… enlightened that we will tag you and we will block you if you disagree! Yes, this is a progressed world! And if you believe otherwise, we will shut you up! Because we enjoy our echo chamber! It is delightful!

Delightful…

Delightful…

Delightful…

ghtful…

ful…

ful…

GRETA AND CHILD EXPLOITATION! (says a crying adult)

Advertisements
Photo by Felix Mittermeier from Pexels

To all of you who see Greta and rejoice for how she speaks so strongly in favor of the “cause”: Do you know what the legal meaning of child exploitation is?

Here is a short summary: It is exactly what is happening with Greta right now!

Do you understand how this kid has been put on the forefront for a race that has a specific agenda? No child should be exploited. A 16-year-old kid has to play, enjoy life, learn. Not to make hysterical speeches in front of an assembly of diplomats to “teach” us what the right thing is. Don’t you understand that Greta just repeats what she’s been told to repeat?

And one more thing: The mere use of Greta (because this is what it is: they are just using her) – of a child I must repeat – in such a situation shows the low level at which the debate has fallen. We are no longer talking with arguments. We talk to the emotions of others and we try to build guilt syndromes. And what can be better than a crying little kid?

If your house is on fire, will you listen to a little kid saying it to you or to an adult? Or worse: Will you hear the little kid more than the adult who warns you about the fire? Sorry but if that is the case, then you are stupid. (Maybe if I put a little kid to say this while crying it will sound much more impressive)

Let the kids out of this and out of any other discussion (I refer to cases where people bring their children to the gay parade etc).

Unconditionally and without reservations!

PS. I have written other articles (see “The hypocrisy of Ecology” for example) about climate and what is happening that few people sit down to read. This article is specifically for Greta and a call to end child exploitation. Not to discuss climate!

The hypocrisy of Ecology.

Advertisements

In the news today, the following made headlines:

Legendary teenage climate change activist Greta Thunberg is causing waves again. This time, literally. She is currently sailing from Plymouth in England to the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York on a carbon-neutral, zero-emissions racing yacht. The trip should take about two weeks, so the schoolgirl hopes to make it in time for the climate change conference which starts on September 23. (source)

This gives me a great opportunity to talk about a very important subject.

Harmonia Philosophica has written long ago about the coercion of ecology. (search for the keyword “ecology” or “against ecology”) However it seems that propaganda of this new religion is spreading fast, so a new article is needed to get things straight.

But wait a minute!

Ecology is a religion?

You bet it is.

And the worst kind: a dogmatic and aggressive one! (No, Christianity is not dogmatic in the bad sense, again read Harmonia Philosophica for more on that)

Ecology uses fear to spread the message. “If we don’t do nothing we will die in ten years/ a generation/ 100 years” is a motto often used to make people aware that they should start believing now instead of tomorrow. Because tomorrow is too late. Of course such grave messages of destruction are spread for decades now and they constantly fail to deliver: the world hasn’t ended. In the beginning we had the threat of “global freezing”. (Really, check it out) When this didn’t manifest we went to the danger of “global warming”. And since this isn’t catchy anymore we are now in the phase of “climate change”. Which is nice and catchy. Oh, and without any danger of failing since – guess what – climate as anything else (including yourself as you read this) is changing!

What could go wrong, right?

And yet, many things are going wrong. The new religion isn’t gaining traction as the priests of ecology wish so. So more things need to be done.

Next technique any bad religion uses: guilt! Load people with guilt! And when you are over, load them with more guilt!

Who is responsible for the demise of the climate? Who else? YOU!

YOU destroyed the ice glaciers. Not the big companies who enjoy emitting thousands of tons of CO2 every second you try to think how to recycle better.

YOU destroyed the oceans. Not the big corporations which spill thousands of tons of waste every second you think about taking a cold shower so as not to spend energy and “save the planet”.

YOU destroyed the atmosphere. Not the thousands of nuclear weapons tests from all the great – now “ecological” – powers. Haven’t you heard the news? You destroyed the ozone layer with your refrigerator! The thousands of nuclear tests of the US, Russia and China just happened to be conducted around the same time.

Are you getting the message?

The whole conglomerates world is destroying the environment, but the priests of ecology want you to believe that you are the bad guy because you made a mistake and threw away paper in the metals recycle bin.

All in all: It is good to recycle. It is good to not throw away plastic in the ocean. But not because Ecology tells you so! But because humans should be living in harmony with the environment! The ecological movement has nothing to do with this as a philosophy, but more with the things I mentioned above. Trying to push you to do things which will at the end – surprise, surprise – will give these conglomerates more money!

More money by not pushing too much the companies be more ecological. After all, it is YOU who destroyed the environment, remember? Every company now tries to be ecological mainly by using its customers – “Bring us back your laptop and we will give you a new cheaper” (while we take all the parts from it, reuse them and make even more money without caring about the environment in our plant in China). More money by buying and selling CO2 rights. They even made a stock market for that! The possibilities are endless! (For the companies, you just have to take a cold shower, don’t forget)

It is a perfect plan.

A perfect scheme.

But who will be the front man?

In the beginning the conglomerates tried to use a man of their “own”. And failed. Al Gore was not the right person to convince people for the new religion of ecology. After all, he was a millionaire and obviously made more money with ecology that they could account for. So another solution was needed.

What’s best than a teenage girl?

So here we are today. Right when I thought propaganda had limits, I saw the article about the “legendary” teenager. This phase is so wrong and self-contradicting that if you don’t see it then you can stop reading right now.

And what does this teenager do? Traveling for two weeks on a boat to speak to clueless grown ups and enlighten them. (Guess what is the third tool of religions: Prophets) Get it? A teenage girl having money and resources to spend two weeks doing nothing (while other “not legendary” teenage girls and boys just read). A teenage girl having a boat to travel for two weeks. (while other “non legendary” girls and boys don’t have money to buy a book)

Do you see now?

The worse intentions can have the most noble of faces. Even if Greta is a great girl (and we have no reason to assume she is not) and has the best intentions (again, we have no reason to assume that she doesn’t), she is not the point of interest here! The system behind her is! (A system which potentially exploits her for all the reasons mentioned above)

Yes, I recycle!

Yes, I respect the environment!

But no, I am not an ecologist!

I just don’t have a boat…

Against ecology per se: Why the solution to a problem can never be the solution to that problem!

Advertisements

Chemicals in biodegradable food containers can leach into compost. (1)

Trying to find the best solution. To a problem we generate on our own.

And every time we find a “solution”…
Another problem appears.

Biodegradable plastic? More pollution due to plastic… dissolving into the environment.

Electrical cars? More pollution due to the… electricity production to make them run. (let alone the money you need to earn to buy one, which money you will earn by utilizing resources which do nothing more than rape the environment)

Biological food? Good. Now we have our consciousness clear. And we can “freely” eat more, so that at the end the damage is even more!

Recycle more? Nice. Just don’t care about the poor countries which at the end receive your garbage. You are clean anyway. Right?

More efficient phones, consuming less energy? Great. I am sure it was worth all those kids dying somewhere in a mine…

We have been caught in a vicious circle. And there is no way to break out by redefining that circle.

No, ecology is not the solution to the problem!

Because as in any problem, the most evident solutions ignore the essence of that problem: that there needs to be no problem in the first place!

Every time we try to solve the pollution problem we keep on accepting as inevitable the true source of that pollution. No, we don’t need to better manage the pollution! We need to stop polluting in the first place! No, we don’t need new greener cars or light bulbs. We need to learn to walk again and read under the
moonlight…

Look at the problem closely…

There is no problem!