‘Half measures, half measures, half measures onward… into the Valley of Death temporized the 6 billion…’
It’s okay to stop & smell the roses along the way to extinction, it seems.
The biggest problem with that idea (imho) stems from the fact that repeated half-hearted actions over the past 50 years is what has got us to where we are today… and where we are today is on the verge of killing off all life on Earth.
Our planet is getting hotter. Glaciers are vanishing, and the world’s ice sheets are melting. The seas are rising worldwide. Global CO2 and methane levels are increasing. Industrial pollution becomes more & more widespread. Forests and uncultivated lands are shrinking. The birds and wildlife are dying.
As a species, we have prevaricated, evaded, equivocated, dodged, beat around the bush, waffled, hedged, fenced, sidestepped, quibbled, delayed, shilly-shallied around, and procrastinated ourselves to the verge of oblivion. And as a direct result, the entire industrial, political and sociological systems humans have put in place worldwide are hell-bent on committing ecocide.
[ECOCIDE: extensive damage to, destruction of, or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or some other, to such an extent that widespread, long lasting or severe environmental harm results.]
One of the prime examples of such shameful behavior being that since 1970 various individuals and groups have been trying to formally incorporate such plain terminology into International Law, and the world’s governing bodies (such as the United Nations) – and have gotten exactly nowhere.
Stop, people! As a group, you’re killing us! Yet, the truth is – as a group – we’re never going to change…
Trying to be ‘realistic’, and continue down the path we have been following, has quite simply been a waste of time. It has resolved nothing. The scientists warn & warn & warn, and nothing gets done. The politicians promise & promise & promise, take bribes by lobbyists, and nothing gets done. Popular elections go on & on & on, the votes always get counted, and then nothing gets done.
Nothing ever changes – except that the world grows ever closer to becoming uninhabitable.
One sad day – it could be 25 years from now, or it could be tomorrow – this Earth is going to reach a tipping point… it may be when all coral reefs in the world have been destroyed, or it may be when all fish in the oceans have suffocated & died, or it may be when the atmosphere can no longer support mammalian life… but when that day comes, there will be no going back to the way things used to be. There will be no second chance. There will be no do-over. On that day, the human species will start to die, in droves…
So the question we should each be asking our own self is, ‘Shall I go quietly into that long dark night, or will I stand & fight while I still have the means to make a difference?’
In the end, what it all comes down to is Ecocide, or Ecowar…
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1993, Volume II, Part One, United Nations.
“Article 26. Item 24. This article is perhaps the vaguest of all the articles. The article fails to define its broad terms. There is no definition of “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. Similarly, the term “wilfully” is not defined, thereby creating considerable confusion concerning the precise volitional state needed for the imposition of criminal liability. The term “wilfully” could simply mean that the defendant performed an act voluntarily, that is to say, without coercion, that had the unintended effect of causing harm to the environment. “Wilfully” could also be construed to impose criminal liability only when the defendant acted for bad purpose, knowing and intending to cause serious harm to the environment. As presently drafted, the meaning of “wilfully” is subject to a variety of interpretations. This confusion is magnified by the Code’s failure throughout to specify the necessary mental and volitional states needed for the imposition of criminal liability.
Item 25. Moreover, as with the other articles, this article fails to consider fully the existing and developing complex treaty framework concerning the protection of the environment.
Item 26. The United States cannot support the draft Code in its present form. Furthermore, the United States questions the efficacy of any future efforts to redraft the present Code, because of the numerous fundamental flaws that permeate its entire structure.”
Only three countries – the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America – opposed the inclusion of an environmental crime under the proposed statute.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
American Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776