Home | About | Donate

Abolish Earth Day

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/04/22/abolish-earth-day

4 Likes

Excellent article…thank you very much!!!

1 Like

British Petroleum, Exxon and company have already co-opted Earth Day, while the US government has come down on the side of the polluters over and over again. This is not the 1970’s–it’s time to tear down false flags.

3 Likes

A “liberal” dose of delusion

Abolish Earth Day?!? But it’s the crowning achievement of the Pepsi Generation!

1 Like

With the corporate takeover of the US gubmit during the past four decades, earth day became obsolete by the end of the 20th century. Making today the last earth day will confirm that we have 2020 vision and won’t be fooled again.

5 Likes

I hadn’t heard of this problem before and read parts of ~https://publicintegrity.org/environment/growing-food-sowing-trouble/lake-erie-toxic-algae-farm-manure-runoff. It sure sounds like once again, the culprit is meat eaters. The more people move away from eating meat the better - better for preventing harmful blooms, pandemics, climate change, heart disease, you name it.

The article mentions even John Kasich got a lot of pushback from the agricutural (meat) industry when he tried to do modest things, so not only isn’t the federal EPA doing anything, but expecting the more conservative state of Ohio to do anything either isn’t much better. We need to change a whole lot of people’s minds on a lot of things as soon as possible and attitudes on regulation and on eating meat are definitely high on the list.

3 Likes

The human population has tripled since the first Earth Day. We warned then about the Population Bomb, but were shouted down by one patriarchal religious leader and his followers. Then the folks behind the Green Revolution said technology would solve any overpopulation troubles, science would provide plenty of food. What wasn’t mentioned was such food production would be based on poisons, soil degradation, and breeding foods for hardiness and easy transport over thousands of miles, not for taste and nutrition.
We were caught in traps and snares set by the corporations and governments, meant to be oh, so, sorry about the millions dying of starvation in Africa and the loss of small family farms in the US. But no one wanted to ask the hard questions about the root causes-again, overpopulation and technological use of land.
I, too, would abolish Earth Day, because They won. We’re up against it. The war-mongers who have no feelings or conscience want death. The Rich want radical de-population as long as it doesn’t include them. And here we are, with a new plague, no leaders anywhere, and no true society or culture. It’s every man(literally) for himself, whether it’s hoarding toilet paper or launching a military satellite against all sense or reason. This will not end well for homo sap. However, Gaia will survive as she always has. She’s had asteroid strikes, ice ages, five ELE’s where almost all life was wiped out, continental drift, storms…yet she survives. And will until the sun becomes a red giant and reaches out to the orbit of Jupiter in size. But that’s another five billion years away…

5 Likes

The other thing people need to do, as well as removing animal products from their diets (and wardrobes) is to reduce the number of offspring they bring into the world. “Planet of the Humans” does a good job of highlighting this truth, as well as laying bare how the environmental movement has been co-opted by corporations.

I need to check that film out - I’m an avid listner of Rumble (but I’m two episodes behind right now - one of them talks about this film I think).

I agree about population completely. I did choose to have one kid 10 years ago - I hope he can make it another 20 years and it is reasonable for him to make the same choice (if the world is completely hopeless by then, he would probably choose to have no kids). I’d love to see a word wide Total Fertility Rate of 1.5 (instead of 2.4) as soon as possible. I wish more people on the left weren’t reluctant to push this issue.

2 Likes

The over-populationists present the wrong answers for the problems of the world and that is why they should be rightly ignored.

The fact is and it is undisputable that the world already produces a surplus of food to feed everybody on the planet - plus more.

If you fail to recognise that it is the distribution of resources which is at fault, all you do is travel down blind alleys.

The logic of profit - Las Vegas
~ttps://www.wspus.org/2019/09/the-strange-existence-of-las-vegas/

Civilisation’s survival it is not about the numbers game but depends on society changing its economic structure to one that is in harmony with our environment and which is sustainable. It is not about zero population growth but developing a steady state economy’s zero growth and that can only be accomplished by ending capital accumulation, expanding markets to extract bigger profits. Only socialism can achieve that.

Professor Corey Bradshaw of Australia’s Flinders University modelled what would happen if the global fertility rate dropped from 2.4 to 2 tomorrow: the population trajectory would reduce by about 50 per cent by 2100, but we’d only get a 7 per cent decline in total emissions, because most come from developed nations where the rate is already low.

In other words, if by magic you made millions of Africans disappear, it will have no effect on climate change.

Even with lower fertility rates the number of people in a country continues to rise for years after young people stop having lots of kids – a phenomenon known as population momentum. Thus, the United Nations continues to project that global population will rise from about 7.6 billion today to more than 11 billion by the end of the century.

"World population increased not because people were breeding like rabbits, but because they stopped dying like flies." - Earth Report 2000

1 Like

Humans do a lot more than eat food. I’m for lifestyle changes too but we need energy and we have outputs that require long term disposal (landfill) and outputs we attempt to recycle through the ecosystem. Note that one of those outputs (manure) as a big contibuter to the very problem being discussed here.

I want to produce less food not more. I want land returned to the wild and I want more organic production.

Every problem we have gets better with less people.

2 Likes

We might just be dialing Life all the way back to Medea, mother bacteria, for awhile. So much for multi-cellular Life. “That was fun while it lasted,” Gaia sighs. “Oh well.”

When it comes to manure, perhaps you don’t know that both Marx and Engels devoted much thought to this shit.

Engels wrote

"When one observes how here in London alone a greater quantity of manure than is produced in the whole kingdom of Saxony is poured away every day into the sea with an expenditure of enormous sums, and what colossal structures are necessary in order to prevent this manure from poisoning the whole of London, then the utopia of abolishing the distinction between town and country is given a remarkably practical basis.”

Marx wrote

“In London…they can do nothing better with the excrement produced by 4.5 million people than pollute the Thames with it, at monstrous expense”.

Agriculture was as much at the forefront of Marx’s thought in Capital as factory life

All progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time is a progress toward ruining the more long-lasting sources of that fertility…Capitalist production, therefore, only develops the techniques and the degree of combination of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth—the soil and the worker.

Yes we all agree that life would be better if there were less people in the world. The Communist Manifesto calls for the end of division between city and countryside. A re-distribution of population

But the issue is how to get there. None of the present proposals succeed in achieving that aim and some advocates in fact obstruct it with authoritarian eugenic engineering population control. (i’m not accusing you but Paul Ehrlich acolytes)

Two features that have created a rising population is the reduction in child mortality and the extension in the elderly’s longevity. Do you want to end those?

The main contribution to the global lowering of the birth rate is women’s empowerment.

Tell me your practical plan and how it differs from the trend to smaller family sizes that is already happening.

There are over 270 species that eat meat and it isn’t ideologically driven but is actually beneficial. Human beings have stepped outside those limits.

1 Like

Thank you for this article and speaking the truth about the sham that is earth day which implies (falsely) that there is a genuine reverence for life on this planet which would also imply that people are doing all they can to maintain healthy, habitable ecosystems.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I woke up yesterday to texts from friends sending me “happy earth day” texts replete with emoji’s of flowers/bees/the earth etc.

How can we be “happy” amidst the human induced sixth extinction which includes the dying of the oceans, the melting of the poles, the fact that CO2 levels in the 400’s are becoming normalized??

Additionally there is the fact that we have the worst “leadership” possible at present and 2 candidates for president which feels like a nightmare that I’m hoping to wake up from.

How many people in your town or throughout this country know who Andrew Wheeler, where he comes from and what specifically he is going right now? I would guess are few . . but not enough people know who this horrid man is.

He (and trump) could be compared to the covid 19 virus in that their actions (like the virus) will destroy countless beings in addition to causing immense harm to water, air, wetlands . . essentially most forms of life.

And the destruction is bipartisan.

How about we have daily press briefings during prime time, on major networks (radio/tv/internet) featuring scientists talking projected deaths due to trump, wheeler and others -----too many to list on this page which would include democrats as well----we can’t forget Obama the “oil president”***

The press briefings could include how to flatten the curve of emissions that continue to rise and how we can bring them down (though I don’t think we can). They could talk about how to flatten the curve of species going extinct as well as how to flatten the curve of increased consumption and population growth. There could be large charts that show the death rates due to air, water pollution and ecosystem destruction.

I could go on. . . .

*** (h)ttps://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/how-obama-became-oil-president-gas-fracking-drill/

1 Like

I have not studied this, but my first reaction to this is that people will consume a lot more land in living space that way. You fit a lot of people in an apartment building (I’ve lived in them for short times over my life, maybe I will again, I don’t like them, but they seem to be a logical choice for sparing the environment).

None of the present proposals succeed in achieving that aim

I don’t understand what you are saying. In cases I’m aware of where a country decides to openly communicate that smaller families are better (Iran is the biggest example, but I’m pretty sure there are others), they sometimes achieve their aim. Of course I believe in rationally assessing success of all strategies used, but we definitely have ones that work. We have a lot of people in control of a lot of countries who don’t want to use them.

Two features that have created a rising population is the reduction in child mortality and the extension in the elderly’s longevity. Do you want to end those?

No (as you already know since I’m pretty sure we’ve had this conversation before). In countries with good health care, a 2.05 TFR is roughly steady state (2.5% of people die before they get to reproductive age and much of that happens in the younger years when kids are most vulnerable). In a country with bad medical care, that number could be as high as 3 or 3.5. Part of the package that convinces people to have fewer kids is knowing that the days where 1/2 their kids are likely to die are over. On life expectancy - in countries with good health care, that isn’t moving very much (and in fact in the US, it went down recently). If they find a cure for aging (I have no idea if this is feasible or not), we are fucked. But shy of that, I’m not worried about a 10 or 20% change in life expectancy.

I’m always in support of that. Some times, you can move on other things simultaneously which also have measurable leverage. I haven’t read much on this topic for a decade or so, but in the past just putting out popular novellas on TV where everyone had small families actually had an impact on people’s fertility decisions.

I’m not an expert, so I’m not going to lay out a particular plan. I don’t want anything absolutely coercive here in the US, but I’m OK with changing the tax structure such that past two children the government says they aren’t going to subsidize that decision anymore. In general, there are lots of ideas, but if we could start just by a LOT more people on the progressive environmental side mentioning the issue, perhaps we would all know of more plan possibilities. I’ve heard a lot of Democracy Now episodes in my life, and I honestly can’t think of a single time I’ve heard them discuss this issue (did a very quick search and I didn’t see anything - I’m not saying I know they haven’t).

Yes, I understand the concept of TFR and a non-steady state population pyramid very well. But in this case, if you are implying we are projected to go below a TFR = 2 and still have to wait before stabilization, unforutanatley you are wrong: if you look at the curve ~https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-fertility-rate-by-world-region-including-un-projections-through-2100, you will see the decrease is so slow that the momentum effect is not a driver - we don’t stabilize for 80 years at current projections and that is the same time the TFR hits 2. If we could drop that TFR to 1.5 in 10 years and stay there for a few centuries, that curve looks a lot different.

1 Like

Dara, yours is the last post/comment on any article on CD today. NO comments can be made on any of today’s articles. Is there any way to get in touch with CD Admin to find out what is going on?