I saw a t-shirt a woman was wearing on the street. It says "Choose life". For most people in all societies their brains have been conditioned in thinking along the same pattern of thought.
Choosing life is a great thing when it means caring for all lives that already exist. Life needs good nourishments and love. Choosing life is a bad thing if it means we favor procreating a new human life. I now may start to sound arrogant but real arrogance is procreating a new life. Overpopulation is one of the main causes of many problems, along with over-consumption. 200 species are extinct per day because there are no lands enough for them. Forest lands have been being clearcut for agriculture and neighborhoods, which in turn create health and environmental problems for humans. Orphans need loving homes too, so if we crave for motherhood, we can adopt. Bringing more people into living in this filthy environment and full of ambitious activities your child needs to keep up with is selfish.
Some people call childfree people selfish but in fact many childfree people are thinkers and spiritualists; they rationalize enough about the states of the world and they have enough love for all lives.
Caring for all lives that already exist certainly brings about true happiness. There are so many humans and nonhumans in need of love from us. Adding more humans into the earth only further the problems. There is no one good aspect derived from it.
Showing posts with label overpopulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label overpopulation. Show all posts
10 April 2015
23 October 2009
Seeing is Not Thinking
An extract from THE GREAT LEAP OF MIND - Rubén Feldman González
Perhaps you'll agree with me that we have learnt to be incoherent and to insult intelligence moment by moment.
You are insulting intelligence right now smoking your tobacco cigarette. But it's not enough if I tell you. If you don't see right now what you are doing (in Unitary Perception) you'll never stop smoking.
QUESTION: I have to see that smoking is incoherent and unintelligent. But I see it and I don't stop smoking.
R.F.G.: You don't see that smoking is unintelligent, you think it is. When you see what smoking is you'll stop smoking immediately. To see is not to think.
Let's have another example of incoherence: "To procreate more children and earn more money is good for mankind."
In reality intelligence shouts to me that overpopulation and greed are destroying the livable surface of the planet and are endangering the life of all mammals, including my little dog and mankind.
For the first time in the written history of man we face the possibility of the end of mankind.
There is interpersonal incoherence, incoherence between ideas and belief, incoherence between man and nature, between the use of technology and the survival of man, incoherence between belief and action, etc.
QUESTION: I believe I understand that part of the problem is to have overvalued thought, the self and even our gross fantasies as if they were something "spiritual."
R.F.G.: Yes. But we don't see (in Unitary Perception) that the ecological and economic collapse of the industrial civilization (both capitalist and communist) have their root in overvaluing thought.
We are all going to die. You know.
The understanding that we are mortal, that nobody avoids that fate of man, brings great sorrow. That's why we spend our life avoiding to think of death and denying (unconsciously) the sorrow of thinking about our own death "when everything goes o.k."
We dont's talk about the man who wants to die because his cancer hurts.
When everything goes okay we deny the sorrow of knowing we are going to die.
Then we escape from that fundamental sorrow (which is also anger and fear).
The escapes are the search for profit, prestige, fame, power, pleasure, entertainment, etc.
Those escapes are easier when we believe the moment of the death is far away.
I say we have to understand paradox, because it is a necessary paradox to talk about silence. To talk about silence is not incoherent, it is a paradox.
There is something specific to do in silence. I call it Unitary Perception.
Another paradox is to understand that we live fully only when we accept that we are going to die and when we stop avoiding the sorrow of knowing we are going to die.
To live with death is to renounce the habit of verbalizing. Right here starts Unitary Perception.
Perhaps you'll agree with me that we have learnt to be incoherent and to insult intelligence moment by moment.
You are insulting intelligence right now smoking your tobacco cigarette. But it's not enough if I tell you. If you don't see right now what you are doing (in Unitary Perception) you'll never stop smoking.
QUESTION: I have to see that smoking is incoherent and unintelligent. But I see it and I don't stop smoking.
R.F.G.: You don't see that smoking is unintelligent, you think it is. When you see what smoking is you'll stop smoking immediately. To see is not to think.
Let's have another example of incoherence: "To procreate more children and earn more money is good for mankind."
In reality intelligence shouts to me that overpopulation and greed are destroying the livable surface of the planet and are endangering the life of all mammals, including my little dog and mankind.
For the first time in the written history of man we face the possibility of the end of mankind.
There is interpersonal incoherence, incoherence between ideas and belief, incoherence between man and nature, between the use of technology and the survival of man, incoherence between belief and action, etc.
QUESTION: I believe I understand that part of the problem is to have overvalued thought, the self and even our gross fantasies as if they were something "spiritual."
R.F.G.: Yes. But we don't see (in Unitary Perception) that the ecological and economic collapse of the industrial civilization (both capitalist and communist) have their root in overvaluing thought.
We are all going to die. You know.
The understanding that we are mortal, that nobody avoids that fate of man, brings great sorrow. That's why we spend our life avoiding to think of death and denying (unconsciously) the sorrow of thinking about our own death "when everything goes o.k."
We dont's talk about the man who wants to die because his cancer hurts.
When everything goes okay we deny the sorrow of knowing we are going to die.
Then we escape from that fundamental sorrow (which is also anger and fear).
The escapes are the search for profit, prestige, fame, power, pleasure, entertainment, etc.
Those escapes are easier when we believe the moment of the death is far away.
I say we have to understand paradox, because it is a necessary paradox to talk about silence. To talk about silence is not incoherent, it is a paradox.
There is something specific to do in silence. I call it Unitary Perception.
Another paradox is to understand that we live fully only when we accept that we are going to die and when we stop avoiding the sorrow of knowing we are going to die.
To live with death is to renounce the habit of verbalizing. Right here starts Unitary Perception.
15 October 2009
Overpopulation and Climate Change
Dedicated to Blog Action Day 2009. This year's theme is Climate Change.
Climate change and global pollution cannot be adequately tackled without addressing the neglected issue of the world's booming population.
Overpopulation had fallen off the agenda of the many organisations dedicated to saving the planet.
By the middle of the century, the United Nations estimates that the world population is likely to increase to more than nine billion, which is equivalent to an extra 200,000 people each day.
"...per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide will likely rise in poor countries for some time yet, even in optimistic scenarios. But that is an issue of consumption, not population."
"...per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide will likely rise in poor countries for some time yet, even in optimistic scenarios. But that is an issue of consumption, not population."
To contradict this "consumption" argument...
Human consumption of natural resources and emission of CO2 requires humans. More humans equals more of what humans do.
Per-capita CO2 emissions will rise greatly in poor countries as they begin to afford the technologies we take for granted. No matter how efficient cars, appliances, machinery and so on become, increased production and use of them will increase CO2 emissions. It's cornucopian fantasy to think a population increasing by 50% can have a "First World" standard of living without causing serious ecological damage. It's fantasy to think it can be done in the first place.
Even if humans discover means to produce enough energy to support ourselves, even with ZERO damage to the environment, our use of energy will increase and we will cause damages, due simply to our increased numbers if nothing else.
Human consumption of natural resources and emission of CO2 requires humans. More humans equals more of what humans do.
Per-capita CO2 emissions will rise greatly in poor countries as they begin to afford the technologies we take for granted. No matter how efficient cars, appliances, machinery and so on become, increased production and use of them will increase CO2 emissions. It's cornucopian fantasy to think a population increasing by 50% can have a "First World" standard of living without causing serious ecological damage. It's fantasy to think it can be done in the first place.
Even if humans discover means to produce enough energy to support ourselves, even with ZERO damage to the environment, our use of energy will increase and we will cause damages, due simply to our increased numbers if nothing else.
The solution is easy...To have enough courage, compassion and love to not breed any more person to the earth. One less person born means a lifetime of resources saved, a lifetime of pollution halted, a lifetime of carbon emission ceased and a lifetime of forest and habitat destruction prevented.
Sources: The Independent and VHEMT
02 May 2009
Overpopulation NOT Consumption
We're seeing more often And I have just heard from a mouth of an "environmentalist" a debate that Consumption is a bigger problem than Overpopulation. The logic goes, since consumption is a bigger driver of environmental degradation than population, we should ignore population and focus on consumption. Someone reasons that rich people consume a lot while poor people consume little. We have to push for reduction of consumption of the rich.
"...per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide will likely rise in poor countries for some time yet, even in optimistic scenarios. But that is an issue of consumption, not population."
Human consumption of natural resources and emission of CO2 requires humans. More humans equals more of what humans do.
Per-capita CO2 emissions will rise greatly in poor countries as they begin to afford the technologies we take for granted. No matter how efficient cars, appliances, machinery and so on become, increased production and use of them will increase CO2 emissions. It's cornucopian fantasy to think a population increasing by 50% can have a "First World" standard of living without causing serious ecological damage. It's fantasy to think it can be done in the first place.
Even if humans discover means to produce enough energy to support ourselves, even with ZERO damage to the environment, our use of energy will increase and we will cause damages, due simply to our increased numbers if nothing else.
Thank you for the answer to this debate from the VHEMTers (www.vhemt.org)
"...per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide will likely rise in poor countries for some time yet, even in optimistic scenarios. But that is an issue of consumption, not population."
Human consumption of natural resources and emission of CO2 requires humans. More humans equals more of what humans do.
Per-capita CO2 emissions will rise greatly in poor countries as they begin to afford the technologies we take for granted. No matter how efficient cars, appliances, machinery and so on become, increased production and use of them will increase CO2 emissions. It's cornucopian fantasy to think a population increasing by 50% can have a "First World" standard of living without causing serious ecological damage. It's fantasy to think it can be done in the first place.
Even if humans discover means to produce enough energy to support ourselves, even with ZERO damage to the environment, our use of energy will increase and we will cause damages, due simply to our increased numbers if nothing else.
Thank you for the answer to this debate from the VHEMTers (www.vhemt.org)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
