Home | About | Donate

It’s Not Just Our Planet That Needs a Green New Deal—Our People Do Too

#1

It’s Not Just Our Planet That Needs a Green New Deal—Our People Do Too

Hannah Estrada

hould the richest country on earth invest to keep the planet we all share inhabitable? We believe the answer is yes — and fast. Unfortunately, not all lawmakers seem to agree.

Last month, our group, Youth Vs. Apocalypse, asked California Senator Dianne Feinstein to support the Green New Deal. She declined. The video of the encounter went viral.

1 Like

#2

I’ve come to the conclusion that if aliens from another planet did come here and see what humans have done to it, they would be perfectly justified in exterminating Homo Sapiens from it as an invasive species that has been ruinous to the rest of life on the planet.

5 Likes

#3

You will never stop climate change. It is a peripheral symptom of a deeper problem. You argue, attempt to persuade, convince with a frame or premise which is simply not true. Not your fault. You were given a story by those you trusted and the story is a lie. Climate change is a byproduct of a larger more pernicious problem.
Our behavior is qualitatively no different than that of yeast. We consume resources, have offspring who in turn consume resources, excrete poisonous waste and repeat this until the environment collapses.

I’m gonna dance around the central problem. What are other symptoms? What has happened to ore grades for copper? What is the total weight of plastics in the ocean as compared to living creatures? How does the total estimated weight of humans and the livestock they consume compare to that of remaining wild creatures. At what rate are wild creatures going extinct since the beginning of the industrial revolution. How much forest is lost each day? How much topsoil is lost each day? How are pollinating insects faring? How much radioactive water in STILL flowing from Fukushima Daiichi. Why are fishermen now dangling electrified leads from the bottom of their nets? What is still happening to bycatch of undesirable species?

I could go on and on…so, what to do? First. In the most profound way, take humans from the center of the universe. Stop making babies. Use only what your heart and lungs need to keep going, if you have more, share it. Stop pretty much everything else. Every other living thing is a person and many of them are more important than you or me. Some of those persons cannot even be seen with the naked eye. Love.

2 Likes

#4

I look at what I’ve written above. There’s so much more, but I have this sense of futility. Because even if you could do all those things that might bring in a better world I think it is very late. Maybe too late. I’m not going to stop being the person I hope to be. I want my passing to be worth mourning and not just a cause for celebration.

I know that ours strengths have become toxic. Maturity, if we get to achieve it, may require setting them aside in a certain kind of renunciation.

You have got to know at least, those who have power now have no answers and don’t want them. They all must be pushed aside and I am not talking about voting.

2 Likes

#5

Factory Farms cause more pollution than Automobiles.

Go Vegan for Personal Health, the Health of the Planet and the Health of the Animals.

2 Likes

#6

Exactly stop making babies fundies.

0 Likes

#7

And stop making babies.

0 Likes

#8

The “planet” being made up of minerals is not going to be affected.

Life that currently exists on the planet is being affected and needs the NGD.

Too much life on any one planet is a big part of the problem.

1 Like

#9

All right, this one I can respond to. Your feeling of futility is completely understandable. It is late, and quite possibly too late. And yet you choose to persevere, to do what is possible and what might have some positive effects in the full understanding that it might have no effect at all. That is what is meant by “faith,” without which we cannot survive.

Let me explain, but briefly: I am an atheist, and have been for roughly fifty years, although I refused to say so in so many words until fairly recently. Virtually all of the language to express certain realities comes down to us from the Abrahamic Tradition, and since those realities are critically important to our being fully human I use that language.

I wrote a little piece on this very topic in one of these forums within the past week. I can’t find it right now, so one that I have deleted, possibly the one about the Anthropocene. Faith has nothing to do with a “supreme being” who lives on a cloud, or with “belief in things unseen,” or with belief at all for that matter. It has to do with persevering when all seems lost, in preference to doing nothing and waiting to die. In a sense it is also the opposite of despair.

I have always found Kierkegaard, “the father of existentialism,” most insightful, even though he remained in The Church for all his days. He deals with faith in Fear and Trembling and with despair in The Sickness Unto Death. Both are short and often bound together. I need to sleep now, but tomorrow I will see if I can find that earlier essay, which goes into a little more detail.

And thanks for introducing me to Kristine Mattis. I have yet to read the two other articles I saved, but may get to them soon.

1 Like

#10

I was unable to find my earlier comment on existential philosophy on CD, but I did uncover a related but somewhat different message to a friend who is bipolar and is stuck in a dead-end job at age 55. The comparison between the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and existential philosophy is not such a long stretch:

Dude, you might find the Hitchhiker’s Guide series amusing or even enlightening, but you’re due for a solid dose of existential philosophy! That’s the school that arose in the 1840s and petered out about a century later, and in the meantime gave serious thought to all the really deep and ultimately unanswerable questions. The Hitchhiker’s Guide was a sort of riff and spoof on that whole business, so the first one (the “Guide”) is probably a good place to start. The hard stuff is REALLY hard, so don’t start with Sartre or Camus (ka-MEW), much less Nietzsche.

I’ve always found Kierkegaard the most accessible and also the most helpful, but a better starting point might be Camus’ relatively short essay, “The Myth of Sisyphus.” As you will certainly recall, Sisyphus was the poor sap that the head Greek God Zeus caught messing around with his old lady, or his mistress, or one of his girls, and sentenced Sisyphus to push a giant rock up the hill every day for all eternity, with the rock rolling back to the bottom of the hill every night.

Sound familiar? There are several ways to deal with such a predicament, none of which I can remember. But it IS in a sense the human condition, and while wealth and power can distract a person from it they can’t make it go away or even change it. Sartre liked to rub that side of it in, which is NOT very helpful. Kierkegaard, like the Buddha, recognized it but chose to show people how to make the best of it.

0 Likes