An eccentric Russian man critical of Putin and described as a shaman, was on his way walking from Siberia to Moscow. Authorities did not allow him to continue. He had already walked about a third of the way of the 5000 or so mile journey. News reports indicate he was arrested and will be criminally charged for an incident that allegedly occurred while on his journey. His supporters insist he was arrested on trumped up charges.
There are those that will rush to the defense of the multi billionaire and multimillionaire oligarchs that rule Russia. They will defend the strong, rich and powerful who are in no need of defense.
Leave this man alone. No matter the place, no matter the country, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech must be a universal right.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Dumping Discarded Electronics And Hazardous Waste, And What Must Be Done
A government official that is a political hack, despite her high level position, explained why her country receives the phones, computers, laptops, and other electronic and technology products that Japan no longer wants. "It is a business, and it givers our people jobs", she explained.
She failed to add that it also gives cancer and other diseases to the workers involved in extracting the small amount of valuable materials inside of discarded technology products, and that her country already is incapable of properly disposing of almost all of its harmful waste products.
She had no answer regarding what happens to the discarded Japanese electronics and other discarded technology products after valuable materials are extracted from them. Here is the answer she would not provide - it goes into an improper landfill where its toxic materials will leech out into the environment, further contaminating the waters and lands of that country.
Is it any wonder that cancer rates have soared in recent decades?
The shipping of discarded toys, electronics, phones, computers, laptops, and so on from one country to another, particularly from developed countries to developing countries, must be outlawed.
Here is where the normally worthless United Nations, in cooperation with the multi billion dollar, normally worthless environmental, animal welfare and conservation movement can actually achieve something good.
People need jobs. Establish an international program where disadvantaged people are employed to remove plastic and other harmful waste from the environment. The people that lose their jobs from ending the toxic waste trade will then be employed in an internationally funded program to clean the environment, rather than contribute to its destruction. Those workers in the clean program will be properly equipped for the handling of waste. Right now, in places in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, developed countries dump their discarded computers, phones, electronics, toys, laptops, plastic, etc., causing cancer and other diseases for poor people, killing wildlife and domestic animals, and contaminating the environments of those countries.
Developed countries must be responsible for their own waste.
The government official already mentioned knows that a few of her fellow countrymen will get rich from having discarded toxic waste dumped into her country. She knows that this waste has a small amount of valuable material that will profit a few, perhaps herself included. She knows also that the extraction process necessary to remove the valuable materials exposes workers to all kinds of toxic substances. She knows that her country is ill equipped to properly dispose of the waste after whatever is valuable inside is removed. She knows that all of these electronics, cell phones, computers, laptops, toys and more will go into landfills in which their toxic materials will leech out into the environment.
She may think that she is not affected because neither she nor anyone in her family is doing the actual work, and therefore are not exposed to the toxic materials. She probably thinks that even when the toxic materials are burned or enter a landfill, she will not be affected because she does not live near the burn site or near the toxic landfill. Even after the toxic waste leeches into the groundwater, she probably thinks that as long as she drinks bottled water, she is safe.
Start a massive employment project in which disadvantaged people are employed to clean the environment.
Outlaw the transfer of discarded electronic waste, cell phones, laptops, computers, medical equipment, plastic, etc from developed countries to developing countries.
She failed to add that it also gives cancer and other diseases to the workers involved in extracting the small amount of valuable materials inside of discarded technology products, and that her country already is incapable of properly disposing of almost all of its harmful waste products.
She had no answer regarding what happens to the discarded Japanese electronics and other discarded technology products after valuable materials are extracted from them. Here is the answer she would not provide - it goes into an improper landfill where its toxic materials will leech out into the environment, further contaminating the waters and lands of that country.
Is it any wonder that cancer rates have soared in recent decades?
The shipping of discarded toys, electronics, phones, computers, laptops, and so on from one country to another, particularly from developed countries to developing countries, must be outlawed.
Here is where the normally worthless United Nations, in cooperation with the multi billion dollar, normally worthless environmental, animal welfare and conservation movement can actually achieve something good.
People need jobs. Establish an international program where disadvantaged people are employed to remove plastic and other harmful waste from the environment. The people that lose their jobs from ending the toxic waste trade will then be employed in an internationally funded program to clean the environment, rather than contribute to its destruction. Those workers in the clean program will be properly equipped for the handling of waste. Right now, in places in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, developed countries dump their discarded computers, phones, electronics, toys, laptops, plastic, etc., causing cancer and other diseases for poor people, killing wildlife and domestic animals, and contaminating the environments of those countries.
Developed countries must be responsible for their own waste.
The government official already mentioned knows that a few of her fellow countrymen will get rich from having discarded toxic waste dumped into her country. She knows that this waste has a small amount of valuable material that will profit a few, perhaps herself included. She knows also that the extraction process necessary to remove the valuable materials exposes workers to all kinds of toxic substances. She knows that her country is ill equipped to properly dispose of the waste after whatever is valuable inside is removed. She knows that all of these electronics, cell phones, computers, laptops, toys and more will go into landfills in which their toxic materials will leech out into the environment.
She may think that she is not affected because neither she nor anyone in her family is doing the actual work, and therefore are not exposed to the toxic materials. She probably thinks that even when the toxic materials are burned or enter a landfill, she will not be affected because she does not live near the burn site or near the toxic landfill. Even after the toxic waste leeches into the groundwater, she probably thinks that as long as she drinks bottled water, she is safe.
Start a massive employment project in which disadvantaged people are employed to clean the environment.
Outlaw the transfer of discarded electronic waste, cell phones, laptops, computers, medical equipment, plastic, etc from developed countries to developing countries.
Why Wealthy Nations Send Their Waste to Developing Countries, And What Must Be done
Why are developed nations sending containers filled with plastic and other waste to developing nations? Most developing nations are already drowning in their own plastic waste. Go to any supermarket or grocery store in a developing nation, and in it almost every food item and personal care item is made from some type of plastic or other oil based non biodegradable material. Snack and candy wrappers, chip bags, food packaging materials, toothpaste, shampoos, Styrofoam, yogurt and other food containers, toothbrushes, plastic bags, the list is endless.
Walk down the isles of any one of these stores, where everything may look clean and orderly, and then realize that after a single use for most items purchased, the wrappers and packaging materials will be around for virtually forever contaminating the environment. The non biodegradable material breaks down into smaller pieces that at some point can never be removed from the environment.
Almost all of this material is non recyclable. And yet recycling persists as the mythical answer to mankind's enormous plastic and other oil based non biodegradable waste problem.
If recycling works - which it does not, including because almost all plastic and other oil based materials mankind presently uses is not recyclable - then why are rich developed nations sending their waste to developing nations that are already overwhelmed with their own plastic waste?
This is not an argument against recycling. Recycle what can be recycled, but stop the illusion that recycling is the answer to the massive plastic waste problem that is destroying lands, coasts, rivers, lakes and oceans.
Sweden burns much of its plastic waste, which is far preferable to the open burning that takes place elsewhere. At least Sweden gets energy from its plastic waste and removes as much contaminants from the burning process as is possible with today's existing technologies. Sweden's controlled burning is also far preferable to the open dumping that takes place all over the world, in which millions upon millions of pounds of plastic enter into the oceans daily.
The deception must end that recycling of plastic means shipping plastic waste to developing countries. Shipping plastic to developing nations ill equipped to handle their own plastic problem is disingenuous, harmful and must become criminalized conduct.
Here is where the United Nations, a normally ineffective entity with a highly partisan agenda (ignore every brutal psychopathic bloodthirsty regime on the planet and focus only on Israel) can help. Outlaw and criminalize the shipping of waste from one country to another, unless the receiving country has been licensed to receive other country's waste because it has the infrastructure and technology to handle plastic waste, including its own. Few, if any countries will qualify, outside of Sweden.
So for now, either have all the plastic waste go to Sweden to be burned, assuming this is something Sweden wants, or have an international agreement that all plastic waste must be disposed of in its country of origin. No more waste dumping from the developed world into the developing world.
Walk down the isles of any one of these stores, where everything may look clean and orderly, and then realize that after a single use for most items purchased, the wrappers and packaging materials will be around for virtually forever contaminating the environment. The non biodegradable material breaks down into smaller pieces that at some point can never be removed from the environment.
Almost all of this material is non recyclable. And yet recycling persists as the mythical answer to mankind's enormous plastic and other oil based non biodegradable waste problem.
If recycling works - which it does not, including because almost all plastic and other oil based materials mankind presently uses is not recyclable - then why are rich developed nations sending their waste to developing nations that are already overwhelmed with their own plastic waste?
This is not an argument against recycling. Recycle what can be recycled, but stop the illusion that recycling is the answer to the massive plastic waste problem that is destroying lands, coasts, rivers, lakes and oceans.
Sweden burns much of its plastic waste, which is far preferable to the open burning that takes place elsewhere. At least Sweden gets energy from its plastic waste and removes as much contaminants from the burning process as is possible with today's existing technologies. Sweden's controlled burning is also far preferable to the open dumping that takes place all over the world, in which millions upon millions of pounds of plastic enter into the oceans daily.
The deception must end that recycling of plastic means shipping plastic waste to developing countries. Shipping plastic to developing nations ill equipped to handle their own plastic problem is disingenuous, harmful and must become criminalized conduct.
Here is where the United Nations, a normally ineffective entity with a highly partisan agenda (ignore every brutal psychopathic bloodthirsty regime on the planet and focus only on Israel) can help. Outlaw and criminalize the shipping of waste from one country to another, unless the receiving country has been licensed to receive other country's waste because it has the infrastructure and technology to handle plastic waste, including its own. Few, if any countries will qualify, outside of Sweden.
So for now, either have all the plastic waste go to Sweden to be burned, assuming this is something Sweden wants, or have an international agreement that all plastic waste must be disposed of in its country of origin. No more waste dumping from the developed world into the developing world.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Domestic Animal Organizations That Have Jumped On The Wildlife Bandwagon
Certain animal organizations have made fortunes presenting themselves as the go to place when it comes to helping domestic animals and lessening animal cruelty. With the power of marketing and hype, these organizations thrive even though they are ineffective and at times harmful. Now they have involved themselves with wildlife, having realized that wildlife protection is a lucrative source of donor money.
Will they do for wildlife what they have done for domestic animals? Namely, little to nothing and worse.
In a world that is deteriorating environmentally, with many species facing extinction, many people and organizations are profiting by the power of slick marketing and hype on the backs of suffering animals. Many organizations and people involved with stopping animal cruelty and with conservation and wildlife protection are ineffective and only making matters worse.
Just as dog fighters have greater chances of getting struck by lightning than ever getting arrested, thanks to a number of animal organizations and animal activists and the lack of anything serious from law enforcement, so too will the environment and wildlife continue to be destroyed with minimal resistance as long as people and organizations exploit serious problems for their own gain.
Will they do for wildlife what they have done for domestic animals? Namely, little to nothing and worse.
In a world that is deteriorating environmentally, with many species facing extinction, many people and organizations are profiting by the power of slick marketing and hype on the backs of suffering animals. Many organizations and people involved with stopping animal cruelty and with conservation and wildlife protection are ineffective and only making matters worse.
Just as dog fighters have greater chances of getting struck by lightning than ever getting arrested, thanks to a number of animal organizations and animal activists and the lack of anything serious from law enforcement, so too will the environment and wildlife continue to be destroyed with minimal resistance as long as people and organizations exploit serious problems for their own gain.
Yahoo And Animal Activists Trivializing Animal Cruelty And Wildlife Destruction. Blaming Hunters And Kill Shelters
On September 13, 2019, Yahoo News posted an article entitled, "Julian Castro's Plan To Save the Animals." The article asserts that hunters and kill animal shelters are two of the threats that wildlife and domestic animals face, and that Julian Castro wants more no kill animal shelters and laws to protect animals.
There is an enormous amount of animal abuse and dog fighting in the United States and elsewhere in the world. The problem in the U.S. is not the lack of laws in regards to domestic animals, but the lack of enforcement of existing laws. It is more important for a number of animal organizations to keep the public believing that they are the answer to animal cruelty, instead of fighting for a widespread, meaningful police response to these crimes. Minimal enforcement of existing laws by token police forces and by ineffective humane investigators fielded by animal organizations have done nothing but help animal abusers and dog fighters.
A number of so called animal activists and animal organizations, and now Yahoo in this article, do not seem to understand the difference between animal cruelty and humane euthanasia. Licensed animal shelters that euthanize animals are not committing crimes. Humane euthanasia is not the same as what dog fighters do to dogs, and what many animal abusers do to animals. Lumping it all together has done nothing but trivialize animal cruelty. Euthanizing is an unfortunate reality, but that is far different than actual animal cruelty.
Lowering euthanasia rates may make people feel good, but it masks the true reality of what lower euthanasia rates entails. In one major city, for example, city euthanasia rates are lowered by ensuring that the number of animal control officers are kept low, and that fewer dogs and cats are removed from the streets. Dogs and cats die out of sight, out of mind, often slowly and painfully. In this way, the city and its so called animal activists can claim victory by a lowered euthanasia rate, when in fact far more animals died painfully out on the streets.
The childish thinking that every dog and cat adopted from a shelter is a rescue, as opposed to actually taking dogs and cats from arrested animal abusers- which rarely happens because of the lack of a widespread police response and from the exploitation of animal cruelty by certain animal organizations and animal activists - has ensured real animal cruelty and dog fighting continue to flourish.
The no kill movement has ensured the trivialization of real animal cruelty. It has contributed to overcrowding in many animal shelters, exposing dogs and cats to inhumane, filthy conditions. It has benefited animal hoarders, who often are at the forefront of do not kill anything (and instead let animals rot away in their often filthy beyond belief premises). No kill has ensured a minimal animal control response in many places, thus allowing dogs and cats to live and die painfully out on the streets.
There is no such thing as no kill. Cows, pigs, chickens, goats, lambs and more must be killed in order to feed dogs and cats. No kill has contributed to the lack of a serious response to real animal cruelty. No kill has contributed to weakened animal control efforts.
And this is to say nothing about where some of these so called no kill shelters get their animals, and how that has contributed to an abusive overseas puppy mill industry.
This world faces serious environmental problems that threaten our very survival. Whether dogs and cats in shelters get adopted or not have nothing to do with many of these serious environmental problems. If anything, American dogs and cats, huge consumers of meat, contribute to the mass slaughter of cows, pigs, and so forth, and to the environmental problems caused by the meat industry. The fecal matter of dogs and cats, often collected in plastic, certainly does not help the environment. No kill has nothing to do with helping the environment and wildlife.
There are not millions of capable people lining up to adopt more dogs and cats from shelters. The number of dogs and cats needing homes far exceeds the number of good homes. Many people that adopt dogs and cats from shelters should not own an animal. The no kill movement often puts emphasis on high adoption rates and too little emphasis on quality of adoptions and ensuring each adoption ends up in good hands.
In a world with mass poverty and serious environmental degradation, it is reasonable to ask if the billions of dollars spent on mass warehousing and sheltering dogs and cats in order to accommodate the no kill movement and in order to prevent euthanasia, could not be put to better use.
Are hunters one of the threats, as Yahoo asserts in its article? There are many people that hunt that are conservationists. Even if someone has a strong aversion to hunting, the fact is that legal hunting is legal. It is not poaching. Many hunters do everything they can to protect wild places. It is possible to oppose hunting, or not want anything to do with it, and still recognize that many wild places and their wildlife would not exist if not for the efforts of hunters and their organizations to preserve those places.
Every single day, millions of pounds of plastic pour into the oceans. Every day, millions of pounds of sewage, pesticides, fertilizer run off, heavy metals and more pour into rivers, lakes and oceans.The oceans are acidifying. This can mean the end of humanity as we know it. The world's rain forests are burning and being destroyed. We are losing the Amazon. The second biggest rain forest, the Congo, is also being lost, even though this is sadly ignored. The world has already lost most of the rain forests in Southeast Asia and elsewhere - with few at best fighting to preserve what little is left.
Yahoo; kill shelters and hunters are not the problem. The continued trivialization and exploitation of real cruelty and wildlife and environmental destruction are part of the problem.
There is an enormous amount of animal abuse and dog fighting in the United States and elsewhere in the world. The problem in the U.S. is not the lack of laws in regards to domestic animals, but the lack of enforcement of existing laws. It is more important for a number of animal organizations to keep the public believing that they are the answer to animal cruelty, instead of fighting for a widespread, meaningful police response to these crimes. Minimal enforcement of existing laws by token police forces and by ineffective humane investigators fielded by animal organizations have done nothing but help animal abusers and dog fighters.
A number of so called animal activists and animal organizations, and now Yahoo in this article, do not seem to understand the difference between animal cruelty and humane euthanasia. Licensed animal shelters that euthanize animals are not committing crimes. Humane euthanasia is not the same as what dog fighters do to dogs, and what many animal abusers do to animals. Lumping it all together has done nothing but trivialize animal cruelty. Euthanizing is an unfortunate reality, but that is far different than actual animal cruelty.
Lowering euthanasia rates may make people feel good, but it masks the true reality of what lower euthanasia rates entails. In one major city, for example, city euthanasia rates are lowered by ensuring that the number of animal control officers are kept low, and that fewer dogs and cats are removed from the streets. Dogs and cats die out of sight, out of mind, often slowly and painfully. In this way, the city and its so called animal activists can claim victory by a lowered euthanasia rate, when in fact far more animals died painfully out on the streets.
The childish thinking that every dog and cat adopted from a shelter is a rescue, as opposed to actually taking dogs and cats from arrested animal abusers- which rarely happens because of the lack of a widespread police response and from the exploitation of animal cruelty by certain animal organizations and animal activists - has ensured real animal cruelty and dog fighting continue to flourish.
The no kill movement has ensured the trivialization of real animal cruelty. It has contributed to overcrowding in many animal shelters, exposing dogs and cats to inhumane, filthy conditions. It has benefited animal hoarders, who often are at the forefront of do not kill anything (and instead let animals rot away in their often filthy beyond belief premises). No kill has ensured a minimal animal control response in many places, thus allowing dogs and cats to live and die painfully out on the streets.
There is no such thing as no kill. Cows, pigs, chickens, goats, lambs and more must be killed in order to feed dogs and cats. No kill has contributed to the lack of a serious response to real animal cruelty. No kill has contributed to weakened animal control efforts.
And this is to say nothing about where some of these so called no kill shelters get their animals, and how that has contributed to an abusive overseas puppy mill industry.
This world faces serious environmental problems that threaten our very survival. Whether dogs and cats in shelters get adopted or not have nothing to do with many of these serious environmental problems. If anything, American dogs and cats, huge consumers of meat, contribute to the mass slaughter of cows, pigs, and so forth, and to the environmental problems caused by the meat industry. The fecal matter of dogs and cats, often collected in plastic, certainly does not help the environment. No kill has nothing to do with helping the environment and wildlife.
There are not millions of capable people lining up to adopt more dogs and cats from shelters. The number of dogs and cats needing homes far exceeds the number of good homes. Many people that adopt dogs and cats from shelters should not own an animal. The no kill movement often puts emphasis on high adoption rates and too little emphasis on quality of adoptions and ensuring each adoption ends up in good hands.
In a world with mass poverty and serious environmental degradation, it is reasonable to ask if the billions of dollars spent on mass warehousing and sheltering dogs and cats in order to accommodate the no kill movement and in order to prevent euthanasia, could not be put to better use.
Are hunters one of the threats, as Yahoo asserts in its article? There are many people that hunt that are conservationists. Even if someone has a strong aversion to hunting, the fact is that legal hunting is legal. It is not poaching. Many hunters do everything they can to protect wild places. It is possible to oppose hunting, or not want anything to do with it, and still recognize that many wild places and their wildlife would not exist if not for the efforts of hunters and their organizations to preserve those places.
Every single day, millions of pounds of plastic pour into the oceans. Every day, millions of pounds of sewage, pesticides, fertilizer run off, heavy metals and more pour into rivers, lakes and oceans.The oceans are acidifying. This can mean the end of humanity as we know it. The world's rain forests are burning and being destroyed. We are losing the Amazon. The second biggest rain forest, the Congo, is also being lost, even though this is sadly ignored. The world has already lost most of the rain forests in Southeast Asia and elsewhere - with few at best fighting to preserve what little is left.
Yahoo; kill shelters and hunters are not the problem. The continued trivialization and exploitation of real cruelty and wildlife and environmental destruction are part of the problem.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Organizations That Benefit Dog fighters, Animal Abusers, Rain Forest, Ocean And Wildlife Destruction
Chapter One: Mindless Conformity And The Need to Mindlessly Belong.
When it comes to charities and other organizations claiming to be for the public good, many of them remain ineffective. The need to feel good and to conform with group mindset is more important than efficacy for many of their followers.
When it comes to animal cruelty and dog fighting, there continues to be a minimal police response and a maximum ineffective response by exploitative animal organizations and worthless police token teams, all of which are to the detriment of animals and people. Crimes, all crimes, belong in the hands of public law enforcement. Decades ago I tried to expose how widespread and common are dog fighting and animal cruelty, and how things will never change for the better as long as these crimes continue to be exploited by animal organizations and are minimally responded to by public law enforcement. Imagine if drunk driving and domestic violence were not widely responded to by public law enforcement, and instead were responded to by token police teams and by private organizations. There would be an explosion of those crimes, just as there is for animal cruelty and dog fighting.
All I received in return is derision; kill the messenger, and watch as certain individuals and organizations make fortunes off the backs of suffering animals.
A number of animal organizations presented themselves (and continue to do so) as being concerned about animal cruelty. Give them donations, they market themselves, and then abused animals are helped. No one had the guts, the decency, to stand up and question their efficacy. Talking about a problem and showing concern for a problem is not the same as actually doing something effective. Likewise, having a program to address a problem is utterly meaningless, even harmful, in the absence of scrutiny and accountability. Unfortunately, feel goodness, not efficacy is the standard.
Fast forward decades later. Practically no one gets arrested for dog fighting. Instead, there are worthless token police teams and animal cruelty investigators fielded by exploitative animal organizations instead of a widespread, meaningful police response. There are also a number of organizations and individuals superb at displays of concern and marketing hype that never get held to task to ever do anything of substance. Think this wrong? Facts do not lie. Practically no one ever gets arrested for dog fighting, and few get arrested for animal cruelty in relation to how widespread and common are these crimes. A dog fighter has a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than ever getting arrested for dog fighting.
And many so called animal lovers, more concerned with feeling good than challenging this pathology, continue to turn a blind eye.
When it comes to conservation, and wildlife protection, a number of conservation, animal welfare and wildlife organizations have become filthy rich marketing themselves as the go to source for helping the environment and wildlife. They have grown rich and famous while wildlife, flora and fauna have greatly diminished. It is easy to point out problems and offer weak and fake solutions as a way of fund raising and to gain more converts and donors. Accountability and critical scrutiny of what these organizations actually do and their efficacy is lacking. Too many people want nothing more than to feel good, not rock boats, and live with illusions rather than face unpleasant realities.
A certain rain forest and its highly endangered wildlife were destroyed. A number of conservation and wildlife organizations ignored the pleas for help, or promised help and did nothing. Talking the talk is different than walking the walk. These organizations are good at pointing out problems, but when it comes to actually doing something effective, no one questions them or holds their feet to the fire.
I cannot, as a man with a voice never listened to, do anything about the rain forests burning, coral reefs disappearing, dog fighting, animal cruelty and much more. But I can directly employ small numbers of people in need to remove plastic pollution from coastlines and other areas. But even this effort will go nowhere as long as people choose feeling good over efficacy. A small number of people and organizations will make fortunes from plastic pollution, the problem will only get worse, and in the end, what should have been done will never get done.
None of the above has to be this way it is. But nothing will change as long as people let emotion prevail - choosing feel goodness and mindless conformity over critical thought and concern for efficacy.
When it comes to charities and other organizations claiming to be for the public good, many of them remain ineffective. The need to feel good and to conform with group mindset is more important than efficacy for many of their followers.
When it comes to animal cruelty and dog fighting, there continues to be a minimal police response and a maximum ineffective response by exploitative animal organizations and worthless police token teams, all of which are to the detriment of animals and people. Crimes, all crimes, belong in the hands of public law enforcement. Decades ago I tried to expose how widespread and common are dog fighting and animal cruelty, and how things will never change for the better as long as these crimes continue to be exploited by animal organizations and are minimally responded to by public law enforcement. Imagine if drunk driving and domestic violence were not widely responded to by public law enforcement, and instead were responded to by token police teams and by private organizations. There would be an explosion of those crimes, just as there is for animal cruelty and dog fighting.
All I received in return is derision; kill the messenger, and watch as certain individuals and organizations make fortunes off the backs of suffering animals.
A number of animal organizations presented themselves (and continue to do so) as being concerned about animal cruelty. Give them donations, they market themselves, and then abused animals are helped. No one had the guts, the decency, to stand up and question their efficacy. Talking about a problem and showing concern for a problem is not the same as actually doing something effective. Likewise, having a program to address a problem is utterly meaningless, even harmful, in the absence of scrutiny and accountability. Unfortunately, feel goodness, not efficacy is the standard.
Fast forward decades later. Practically no one gets arrested for dog fighting. Instead, there are worthless token police teams and animal cruelty investigators fielded by exploitative animal organizations instead of a widespread, meaningful police response. There are also a number of organizations and individuals superb at displays of concern and marketing hype that never get held to task to ever do anything of substance. Think this wrong? Facts do not lie. Practically no one ever gets arrested for dog fighting, and few get arrested for animal cruelty in relation to how widespread and common are these crimes. A dog fighter has a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than ever getting arrested for dog fighting.
And many so called animal lovers, more concerned with feeling good than challenging this pathology, continue to turn a blind eye.
When it comes to conservation, and wildlife protection, a number of conservation, animal welfare and wildlife organizations have become filthy rich marketing themselves as the go to source for helping the environment and wildlife. They have grown rich and famous while wildlife, flora and fauna have greatly diminished. It is easy to point out problems and offer weak and fake solutions as a way of fund raising and to gain more converts and donors. Accountability and critical scrutiny of what these organizations actually do and their efficacy is lacking. Too many people want nothing more than to feel good, not rock boats, and live with illusions rather than face unpleasant realities.
A certain rain forest and its highly endangered wildlife were destroyed. A number of conservation and wildlife organizations ignored the pleas for help, or promised help and did nothing. Talking the talk is different than walking the walk. These organizations are good at pointing out problems, but when it comes to actually doing something effective, no one questions them or holds their feet to the fire.
I cannot, as a man with a voice never listened to, do anything about the rain forests burning, coral reefs disappearing, dog fighting, animal cruelty and much more. But I can directly employ small numbers of people in need to remove plastic pollution from coastlines and other areas. But even this effort will go nowhere as long as people choose feeling good over efficacy. A small number of people and organizations will make fortunes from plastic pollution, the problem will only get worse, and in the end, what should have been done will never get done.
None of the above has to be this way it is. But nothing will change as long as people let emotion prevail - choosing feel goodness and mindless conformity over critical thought and concern for efficacy.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Slaves To Religion: Mankind's Often Ungodly Invention
Religions that insist only their way is the right way and that only their so called holy books are the true word of god merits challenging. These religions protect and shield themselves from criticism, some more aggressively than others.
Rejecting religion does not make one an atheist. Even if someone is an atheist, it is still their right to criticize religion. Take away the ability to criticize religion, and then all that are left are mindless worshipers.
Humans have free will. We are not meant to be slaves, and we are not meant to be slaves to a religion.
There is no religion on the face of this planet that is the right religion for all of humanity. Before the aggressive, imperialistic expansion of certain religions that insist only their way is the right way, and that all those that disagree must be punished, in this life or the next or both, there were thousands of different religions in this world. Thousands of those religions, the followers of those religions and their cultures have been destroyed. We are left now with a few monolithic religions in which one in particular has far too many adherents trying to expand the religion through the use of violence and terror.
Freedom of religion includes freedom to reject religion and to deny the claims of any religion that it speaks for God, or that it is the true word of God.
Read any religions holy books, which many insist is the direct word of God, and in it one will find flaws, inconsistencies, and the complete lack of awareness of cultures and people that exist outside of a defined geographical area. Why is middle east history or the history of any area more important than the history of the people that lived in the Amazon, the Congo, or in many other places of the world?
All of the faiths that originated in the middle east were completely unaware of the existence of other peoples in the world living in the Amazon, the Congo, and in many other places. They were unaware, despite claims of being the religion for the whole world, because they are instead parochial religions that happened to have spread across the world, often by force, coercion and violence.
Religious coercion, force, bigotry and violence continues to this day. Far too many people are afraid to admit it or to stand up against it out of fear or out of fear of offending someone.
Too often, elevating a clergy class of people to god like status has opened the door to abuse, sexual and otherwise. Clergy should be humble and kind. They should not be given undue power and prestige, where evil people are protected and can get away with pedophilia and other crimes. No religion should protect pedophiles or be a sanctuary for pedophiles.
No religion should be a sanctuary for hate filled psychopaths.
We live in a day and age in which humanity is threatened with extinction not only by our nuclear weapons and their proliferation, but also by the enormous environmental harm that we have caused. Our oceans are filled with plastics, harmful pesticides and other chemicals, heavy metals, fecal matter and more. Our rain forests are burning and disappearing before our eyes. Our coral reefs are facing a mass extinction. Millions of species face extinction. The biodiversity that keeps intact the thread of life is disappearing.
In spite of all these challenges that threaten our very existence as a species, millions, even billions of people are being indoctrinated to mindlessly follow religion, and far too often, to resort to violence in order to spread religion, or to silence its critics.
Religion will not save humanity. Religion will hasten our extinction if we keep pandering to its alleged sanctity and refuse to criticize and open our eyes to its destructiveness when it promotes hatred, intolerance, bigotry, criminality, terror and violence.
When religion uplifts, helps people to be kinder, more compassionate, it is a force of good. When religion helps people to be narrow minded, hate filled bigots believing they speak on behalf of God, then it is a harmful, destructive force.
Humanity must make a choice. What is more important? Protecting religion from criticism, or protecting our environment and ourselves? We need to stop the blind acceptance of having more children indoctrinated to be mindless slaves to religion, where they no longer think for themselves, and in which they can easily be turned into human missiles programmed to kill.
Rejecting religion does not make one an atheist. Even if someone is an atheist, it is still their right to criticize religion. Take away the ability to criticize religion, and then all that are left are mindless worshipers.
Humans have free will. We are not meant to be slaves, and we are not meant to be slaves to a religion.
There is no religion on the face of this planet that is the right religion for all of humanity. Before the aggressive, imperialistic expansion of certain religions that insist only their way is the right way, and that all those that disagree must be punished, in this life or the next or both, there were thousands of different religions in this world. Thousands of those religions, the followers of those religions and their cultures have been destroyed. We are left now with a few monolithic religions in which one in particular has far too many adherents trying to expand the religion through the use of violence and terror.
Freedom of religion includes freedom to reject religion and to deny the claims of any religion that it speaks for God, or that it is the true word of God.
Read any religions holy books, which many insist is the direct word of God, and in it one will find flaws, inconsistencies, and the complete lack of awareness of cultures and people that exist outside of a defined geographical area. Why is middle east history or the history of any area more important than the history of the people that lived in the Amazon, the Congo, or in many other places of the world?
All of the faiths that originated in the middle east were completely unaware of the existence of other peoples in the world living in the Amazon, the Congo, and in many other places. They were unaware, despite claims of being the religion for the whole world, because they are instead parochial religions that happened to have spread across the world, often by force, coercion and violence.
Religious coercion, force, bigotry and violence continues to this day. Far too many people are afraid to admit it or to stand up against it out of fear or out of fear of offending someone.
Too often, elevating a clergy class of people to god like status has opened the door to abuse, sexual and otherwise. Clergy should be humble and kind. They should not be given undue power and prestige, where evil people are protected and can get away with pedophilia and other crimes. No religion should protect pedophiles or be a sanctuary for pedophiles.
No religion should be a sanctuary for hate filled psychopaths.
We live in a day and age in which humanity is threatened with extinction not only by our nuclear weapons and their proliferation, but also by the enormous environmental harm that we have caused. Our oceans are filled with plastics, harmful pesticides and other chemicals, heavy metals, fecal matter and more. Our rain forests are burning and disappearing before our eyes. Our coral reefs are facing a mass extinction. Millions of species face extinction. The biodiversity that keeps intact the thread of life is disappearing.
In spite of all these challenges that threaten our very existence as a species, millions, even billions of people are being indoctrinated to mindlessly follow religion, and far too often, to resort to violence in order to spread religion, or to silence its critics.
Religion will not save humanity. Religion will hasten our extinction if we keep pandering to its alleged sanctity and refuse to criticize and open our eyes to its destructiveness when it promotes hatred, intolerance, bigotry, criminality, terror and violence.
When religion uplifts, helps people to be kinder, more compassionate, it is a force of good. When religion helps people to be narrow minded, hate filled bigots believing they speak on behalf of God, then it is a harmful, destructive force.
Humanity must make a choice. What is more important? Protecting religion from criticism, or protecting our environment and ourselves? We need to stop the blind acceptance of having more children indoctrinated to be mindless slaves to religion, where they no longer think for themselves, and in which they can easily be turned into human missiles programmed to kill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)