Who is wrong and who is right?
Who is bad and who is good?
Is it not more important to follow our own beliefs and values – and defend these – instead of criticising another nation for what we believe they are doing wrong?
By this, I am definitely not suggesting I believe that rituals pertaining to various cultural traditions are always acceptable (especially those involving cruelty to animals); far from it, in fact. What I am saying is that rather than determinedly targeting other societies for their ‘wrongdoings’, people should consider what is going on in their own society and evaluate whether they are truly abiding by their own beliefs and values ... or being complete hypocrites.
Society is full of individuals with one thing in common – desire constantly prevails over belief.
I was thinking today about all the stories in which good prevails over evil ... the protagonists ultimately defeating any bad guys. In stories, of course, there is generally a well established good and bad side (although again, this is culture targeted and therefore good and bad is only a perception). This led me to consider what is going on around the world at present; various disputes, different allegations, and different levels of reward and punishment being allocated to those individuals deemed worthy or guilty enough for them.
Perhaps war / international debate is a global-scale form of procrastination for each nation to clean their own territory’s ... or perhaps it is more a defence / denial mechanism. Is it easier to place blame for different issues on another state or nation? In this case, I ask: who is wrong and who is right?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The Worst Human Epidemic?
Will egotism kill the human race?
Population control.
As defined by the ever awesome Wikipedia;
"the practice of artificially altering the size of any animal population besides humans. It typically refers to the act of limiting the size of an animal population so that it remains manageable, as opposed to the act of protecting a species from excessive rates of extinction, which is referred to as conservation biology."
This is typically done through 'animal euthanasia' (culling??) and neutering.
I think it's safe to say, however, that the population number, and growth, to be most feared is our own ... the human population continues to grow ... more and more people suffer from poverty, disease and abuse ... the pollution from overcrowded cities ... and perhaps the most hypocritical part of it all is that we are endangering other species through environmental / habitat destruction to support our own growth.
The question is (more rhetorical than anything): why, when many people (scientists and politicians perhaps..) express such a keen interest in maintaining the health and general welfare of the environment and wildlife populations, do so many see such measures on the human population as a crime or 'unthinkable'?
I present to you a couple of images, retrieved from google, depicting the consequences of human population growth:
Not really difficult to interpret these graphs, but for the sake of getting the message across, it's obvious that if human population growth continues the way it is, the consequences for the planet will be dire.
A quote which I think emphasises an important issue of population growth which is perhaps less considered than it should be in an age where technological advancements are strengthening our desire to live longer and stronger, defying age, and in turn cementing our opinion that we are superior;
"While the human population grows, the earth's size and resources remain the same. Technology can increase the amount of food that can be produced on a piece of land, but it cannot increase the amount of land and water on the planet."
Furthermore, I believe this particular paragraph;
"Environmental problems are aggravated by population explosions. More people means more resources and energy are consumed and more pollution is created and more waste is sent to landfills. More land is needed to grow crops and build houses. More trees are cut down for new homes. More cars are built, more fossil fuels are used, and more gases are released into the environment. More natural wilderness areas or beautiful landscapes are destroyed to provide resources and cropland. In short, population growth makes other environmental problems harder to solve."
sums up well my thoughts on why it is less important to settle the debate on climate change / global warming than it is to act on changing our behaviour for the problems we know and agree exist.
I highly recommend you read this article
Population control.
As defined by the ever awesome Wikipedia;
"the practice of artificially altering the size of any animal population besides humans. It typically refers to the act of limiting the size of an animal population so that it remains manageable, as opposed to the act of protecting a species from excessive rates of extinction, which is referred to as conservation biology."
This is typically done through 'animal euthanasia' (culling??) and neutering.
I think it's safe to say, however, that the population number, and growth, to be most feared is our own ... the human population continues to grow ... more and more people suffer from poverty, disease and abuse ... the pollution from overcrowded cities ... and perhaps the most hypocritical part of it all is that we are endangering other species through environmental / habitat destruction to support our own growth.
The question is (more rhetorical than anything): why, when many people (scientists and politicians perhaps..) express such a keen interest in maintaining the health and general welfare of the environment and wildlife populations, do so many see such measures on the human population as a crime or 'unthinkable'?
I present to you a couple of images, retrieved from google, depicting the consequences of human population growth:
Not really difficult to interpret these graphs, but for the sake of getting the message across, it's obvious that if human population growth continues the way it is, the consequences for the planet will be dire.
A quote which I think emphasises an important issue of population growth which is perhaps less considered than it should be in an age where technological advancements are strengthening our desire to live longer and stronger, defying age, and in turn cementing our opinion that we are superior;
"While the human population grows, the earth's size and resources remain the same. Technology can increase the amount of food that can be produced on a piece of land, but it cannot increase the amount of land and water on the planet."
Furthermore, I believe this particular paragraph;
"Environmental problems are aggravated by population explosions. More people means more resources and energy are consumed and more pollution is created and more waste is sent to landfills. More land is needed to grow crops and build houses. More trees are cut down for new homes. More cars are built, more fossil fuels are used, and more gases are released into the environment. More natural wilderness areas or beautiful landscapes are destroyed to provide resources and cropland. In short, population growth makes other environmental problems harder to solve."
sums up well my thoughts on why it is less important to settle the debate on climate change / global warming than it is to act on changing our behaviour for the problems we know and agree exist.
I highly recommend you read this article
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Nurturing the Roots
A very interesting thought was brought to my attention today, by a rather great, wise man:
"as a society/a world with so many problems should we fix one problem at a time starting from the root cause or should we try and fix them all at once(ie 3rd world countries, animal cruelty etc)
if we fix all of them at once we may have no impact, if we focus on one and work through them we may neglect animals or starving people for a period but ultimately wouldn't we fix the problem?"
My initial response to this:
"the idea of starting from the root cause has merit though; dealing with the base issues to prevent the actual problems worsening, or others developing in the future. You're right - trying to focus on all at once may have no impact - would probably be slightly chaotic, could even make things worse."
And to continue from this:
Yes, eventually, if we were consistent with trying to resolve issues bit by bit, ultimately we probably would fix the problems. Unfortunately, for a great deal of progress it would require a change in attitude by a large portion of the world's population.. or at least that of developed nations. In saying that, I definitely believe it's possible for one person to inspire a crowd that can have huge influence - as has been done repeatedly throughout history. The problem that comes to mind with this is - while there are people creating positive progress with these problems, a larger part of the population continues to act counter-effectively, by consuming products that perhaps aren't ethically produced (such as free trade) or consuming the products of animals kept in caged or otherwise intensive farming systems.
To work on one problem at a time - would we experience guilt at the thought of perhaps neglecting the other creatures suffering, whether they be human or other animal? Or would concentration on one problem result in increased difficulties for the other issues?
In general, I think there is a lot to be said for dealing with the root cause of any issue - whether that be the emotional difficulties experienced by an individual, or the poverty experienced by a nationwide population; if you nurture the foundations, then surely the stem and branches will be better nourished.
"as a society/a world with so many problems should we fix one problem at a time starting from the root cause or should we try and fix them all at once(ie 3rd world countries, animal cruelty etc)
if we fix all of them at once we may have no impact, if we focus on one and work through them we may neglect animals or starving people for a period but ultimately wouldn't we fix the problem?"
My initial response to this:
"the idea of starting from the root cause has merit though; dealing with the base issues to prevent the actual problems worsening, or others developing in the future. You're right - trying to focus on all at once may have no impact - would probably be slightly chaotic, could even make things worse."
And to continue from this:
Yes, eventually, if we were consistent with trying to resolve issues bit by bit, ultimately we probably would fix the problems. Unfortunately, for a great deal of progress it would require a change in attitude by a large portion of the world's population.. or at least that of developed nations. In saying that, I definitely believe it's possible for one person to inspire a crowd that can have huge influence - as has been done repeatedly throughout history. The problem that comes to mind with this is - while there are people creating positive progress with these problems, a larger part of the population continues to act counter-effectively, by consuming products that perhaps aren't ethically produced (such as free trade) or consuming the products of animals kept in caged or otherwise intensive farming systems.
To work on one problem at a time - would we experience guilt at the thought of perhaps neglecting the other creatures suffering, whether they be human or other animal? Or would concentration on one problem result in increased difficulties for the other issues?
In general, I think there is a lot to be said for dealing with the root cause of any issue - whether that be the emotional difficulties experienced by an individual, or the poverty experienced by a nationwide population; if you nurture the foundations, then surely the stem and branches will be better nourished.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Happy World Animal Day!
World Animal Day certainly seems a fitting topic for a blog observing and, in some ways, attempting to analyse the world; animals are a crucial part of the world and its atmosphere.. and no, I don't necessarily mean 'atmosphere' in terms of the gases circulating the globe.. I'm talking about the general emotional experience on Earth.
Animals are therapeutic. They're protective; they're nurturing. They're loyal. They (mostly) love unconditionally. They're intelligent.. much more so than many humans will give them credit for.
A youtube search for 'animal heroes' is simple proof of how incredible they are, and can be. Here's a video detailing the Animal Heroes of 2006 - Animals that have saved human lives and showed outstanding bravery, courage and intelligence:
It also seems fitting to include a few awesome quotes:
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Ghandi
"Aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly, but the bumble bee doesn't know it so it goes on flying anyway." - Mary Kay Ash
"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people." - W. C. Fields
"A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself." - Josh Billings
Finally, the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare - please read and sign the petition - it takes just a few moments of your time.
www.udaw.org
http://www.animalsmatter.org/en/campaign_resources/
And finally (for real this time!) a thought to ponder...
"One interesting finding is that 99% of Australians are against cruelty to animals, yet 98% eat animals and fish that come from cruel, intensive farming practices!" (A Pound of Flesh, http://www.scribd.com/doc/26880337/APF-VVSQ)
As Ghandi says.. 'you must be the change you want to see in the world'.
Here's to all animals
Animals are therapeutic. They're protective; they're nurturing. They're loyal. They (mostly) love unconditionally. They're intelligent.. much more so than many humans will give them credit for.
A youtube search for 'animal heroes' is simple proof of how incredible they are, and can be. Here's a video detailing the Animal Heroes of 2006 - Animals that have saved human lives and showed outstanding bravery, courage and intelligence:
It also seems fitting to include a few awesome quotes:
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Ghandi
"Aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly, but the bumble bee doesn't know it so it goes on flying anyway." - Mary Kay Ash
"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people." - W. C. Fields
"A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself." - Josh Billings
Finally, the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare - please read and sign the petition - it takes just a few moments of your time.
www.udaw.org
http://www.animalsmatter.org/en/campaign_resources/
And finally (for real this time!) a thought to ponder...
As Ghandi says.. 'you must be the change you want to see in the world'.
Here's to all animals
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)