Tags: environment

neutral

Might and Right

Does might make right?

Might makes things happen.

It cannot make things morally good.

It cannot escape the natural consequences of things.

For example, in moral terms, indigenous people in the Amazon hold their land and murdering them is wrong.

Under might makes right, they are routinely forced off their land and murdered.  People know it's wrong.  They just want to take things, and they can, so they do.

Then the country has problems consequent to racism and genocide.  These don't go away, or at least, America has suffered them for ~400 years with only minimal improvement.

Furthermore, the people committing theft and genocide upon the indigenous people are also ripping out the planet's lungs, on which we all depend.  So this particular consequence is a threat to species survival and the integrity of the biosphere.

And that's why we have morals, to avoid the kind of problems caused by might makes right.  Just because you can  do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should.
neutral

Poem: "Before the City Sinks"

This poem came out of the March 17, 2020 Poetry Fishbowl. It was inspired and sponsored by Anthony Barrette. It also fills the "water" square in my 3-1-20 card for the Food Fest Bingo.


"Before the City Sinks"
-- a sonnet


The fires send up carbon to the sky,
Which warms the earth beneath the baking sun
And from the glaciers rivers swiftly run
To raise the ocean's waters where they lie.

In Venice, rising water turns the eye
As buildings sink, foundations near undone.
The barriers asea are overrun;
Stone lions strive to hold their noses high

The time is now to act while yet we may,
Put out the flames and save what things we can,
Before the city sinks beneath the waves --

Else Venice will become like lost Pompei
A marker for the foolishness of man
Where innocent lie bones in restless graves.

* * *

Notes:

The sonnet is a classical form of poetry with 14 lines.  Learn how to write one.

Venice suffers increasing floods because the ocean is rising at the same time the city is sinking.  





neutral

Scientists and Indigenous People

Scientists should work with indigenous people, not on them.

That's a nice premise, but it does fuckall good in a world where indigenous people have few or no rights.  They should have rights, but in practice they just don't.  South America is slaughtering their native people wholesale to steal their land.  North America and Australia did so long since, and never quite stopped trying to stamp out the last few survivors who they wish would stop pestering them about the genocides.
neutral

Half Earth

Scientists say we need to reserve at least half the planet for nature if we want it to remain functional.  That's a great idea. 

I think we should start with the low-hanging fruit: most governments control large areas of land that are not yet designated as nature reserves but could be.  They're currently used for logging, grazing, mining, etc.  Simply switch the classification and we'd gain a huge amount of nature reserve without needing to oust or even regulate a single private owner.  Ditto oceans, there's a lot in national control that could be switched over.

We could also employ a bunch of people as conservationists just by letting rural folks sign up for a program that would pay them to keep their land in a natural state.  This would make it feasible for people to repopulate a lot of areas that are losing population, thus reducing the flow into already overcrowded cities.  Mine is a bit catch-as-catch-can but it sure has more wildlife than surrounding farms.  Imagine what someone could do with a few dozen or hundred acres in Vermont.  This would also let us convert marginal cropland to healthy shortgrass prairie, without running farmers out of house and home.  Here, we'll pay you to quit trying to grow wheat and grow native grasses instead.