Why global warming doesn’t matter

Lebanon, October 2019

In 2019, the planet burned! From the Amazon Rainforest to Australia, fires devoured trees, plants, animals and lands. Facing this heartbreaking and scary scenery, only romantics like Greta and us yelled the danger of global warming.

So, global warming is the planetary issue, right?

Not so fast. The less romantic among us don’t care about global warming. To them the real underlying issues are elsewhere. They are respectively: energy and nutrition.

The world population was estimated to have reached 7.7 billion people in 2019. Authorities’ worries are more about producing energy (nuclear, alternative, fossil…) and finding ways to feed the immense number of mouths. It is an issue because food industry is one of the biggest energy consuming factors.

Does this all show us that the real problem is the shrinking of the vital space?

The vital space is the space needed for a specie to survive. With an increasing world population in terms of demographics, the concept of vital space is not openly discussed for ethical reasons obviously. The concept of vital space requires harsh questions: fewer babies? More birth control? If so, isn’t the current population at risk of aging?

Or, as awful as it sounds, wouldn’t wars do the job to lessen the number of people?

Whether global warming needs urgent and immediate actions, it is high time we let go of the past in order to face the future. What past are we talking about? Traditions and religions.

21 thoughts on “Why global warming doesn’t matter”

  1. For a long while, I’ve seen the planet Earth as the same representation of the human form, with the more production of life, the more production of expendables, means the more “heated” it goes on “down South”, literally and figuratively speaking.

    A woman represents the planet Earth, and while this is a metaphor, it is interesting to note that it is, of course, a fact that life spawns from a woman… therefore, I’m going to see the vagina as the physical representation of “mass production”. See, when “chivalry died”, as chivalry was first invented to stifle a “rushed” state of mind, or simple impatience, there came out of this, the almighty word “opportunity”. Get rid of chivalry, and you are left with the “rushed” state of mind, and “mass production” comes out of this.

    I say this, and it may sound a tad offensive, that a woman can only govern the world, when the world is in a state of development. As in, to rise (quickly) from poverty to highness. That is, from 3rd world, to 2nd world, to 1st world.

    However, as the female physiology rules over “development”, such would relate to how an infant begins to “develop” in the womb. Obviously, a woman would need a man to perform his act, so that the “development” begins. Lust is, in this case, that “act” of sexual intercourse, that will create that beginning for development to run its course.

    I will here relate the notion of “development” to a “developing nation”. However, an already “developed” nation has reached a state of “dissatisfaction”, and thus, overuse from mass production.

    When you have Antarctica, you have a frozen place. When you have unison, you have Pangea, the supercontinent that prehistoric creatures lived upon. When you have “pre-determination”, as in, Nature’s determination that the next creatures upon Earth would be humans, you have the breaking of Pangea to form division. Humans adore division, and to be conquerors. Development fights against development, in terms of power.

    Antarctica is merely the place of a woman’s womb, a coldness, an emptiness, that cannot support human life. However, when a man creates that “heat” I previously mentioned, then “all of Antarctica melts”, so to speak, and human life is developed and supported.

    The “overuse” of such an area of a woman’s form, causes us to understand that “global warming” would, of course, occur in the South.

    For it is almost as if Mother Nature, Herself, understood that Antarctica needed to be placed at the Southern pole of Earth, so that humans, who are mammals (since there were no mammals in prehistoric times), could undertake all of this.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. As well…

    I don’t see “religions” or “traditions” as “the past”, as much as that is the common belief.

    “Religion” simply stands for faith or trust. One can trust in a god, as easily as they can trust in their own mother, or trust in the towel to dry one’s body after a shower.

    However, if someone’s mother were to live for a thousand or so years, then they’d no longer be treated as any ordinary human. They’d be revered, to a godly account. Humans, these days, have obtained a sort of arrogance that makes them just like the ridicule that early Atheists spouted, against religion, when those early Atheists deemed religion to be controlling. We are proving more and more, these days, that it is not religion or some other doctrine that controls humans, as much as it is simply humans that control humans.

    I say this, “When the free man fights, he is fighting against another free man, until one ends up dead or enslaved.”

    As for tradition…

    There will always be new ones.

    However, if you stray away from a society’s roots, you have no choice but to extend those roots downwards, so that the “tree” grows in the opposite direction. That’s a metaphor for “growth”. If a previous society sought to create ways that were based on what today’s society calls “tradition”, then whatever efforts today’s time does to tear those traditions apart, including the foundations, will inevitably create new traditions that do the opposite.

    Take religion, for example, that implored people, in the past, to be satisfied.

    And, nowadays, people are continually told that they “need” a specific item that is being marketed through an advertisement.

    These are polar opposite occurrences, almost psychological in how they happened, and run along a timeline of specific events that affected that psychology.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. “Spirituality”, is what I’d define as “inward discovery”, or the “self-love/self-care” mentality that has become so prevalent in the 21st century, and seemingly, only the 21st century among the 2 new generations that spawned from nowhere. It is the “self-love/self-care” mentality that has also dominated the marketing world, feeding from people’s insecurities over what they want for themselves.

        “Love is a judgement.” Does anyone ever consider that? Love is indeed a judgement, and should a contemporary belief state that judgement should be avoided from external voices, then are we judging ourselves? How can we name our own weaknesses, without that external harsh judgement first telling us what is wrong? How can we name our own identity, without the criticism that calls out our vulnerability in the first place?

        Love is a judgement, because a judgement names the guilt of someone. And, love does this by knowing the fault of someone, and giving them salvation, giving them freedom. Can anyone then tell me that this is “archaic”? I don’t think so, when love, as an emotion, always forms a barrier over weakness. It conceals weakness in modesty. If one can tell me that what I say is for the past, then they will also deny that the feeling of love compels a person to protect their loved one.

        Look at this, for example…

        Back over 2,000 years ago, when the tale of Adam & Eve was written, both Adam & Eve clothed themselves in the “presence of God”.

        And now…

        When science that has taken a liking for the “realistic” over the “idealistic”, people have begun to unclothe themselves. That is, people have begun to take off their garments, as such were the occurrences during the 20th century when people thought that “modesty”, “love”, “virginity”, and “marriage” were hindrances.

        Can anyone tell me how this happened?

        Can anyone tell me how the Bible predicted what was going to happen, before it even happened?

        Love becomes the most ultimate of judgement, and our punishment in Hell is only by steering away from love.

        Many Christians will foolishly state that “Hell” is a real place, that you go to when you die. And, I’ll say these Christians are only half-right, because Hell is indeed a real place, but you’ll only go to it when you give up external strength/identification/love. Hell is the real place, because within the Earth, there is the most density. However, Heaven is the most unreal place, because within the clouds, there is no density.

        What would be the result of a world of humans where each person is only able to identify themselves, through this spirituality? It would mean that no one is able to identify the weakness of a pauper, and go to help them. It would mean that everyone, through their adoration with “self-identification” would focus more on success, rather than empathy.

        I describe “success” as this, “Success is a one-way road on the path without turns. One will not look left or right, but only ahead, because to turn on that road would mean to be distracted by someone else in need.”

        And, what would be the result, if chivalry were re-introduced into this contemporary society where people reject external judgement?

        It would result in a society where people actually DO look left or right, to see who needs help. To see the identification of an injury, and rush to help them.

        For the same mentality of a person who does not want someone else to judge them, will be the same thoughts going through their mind when they are hesitant in helping someone else.

        One must be the judge, in order to help.


  3. Greetings maylynno! — Ask among the world’s Nations whether Humankind’s most urgent cause is over population, more vital space (as you put it) or climate change and you will get a multitude of different answers. Each specific to their country’s immediate needs. Climate change however will effect the entire planet, causing increasing issues globally for all humankind. Yet asking Nations to help scale back climate change while their people are suffering with other immediate needs all their own is idealistic to say the least.

    In my opinion, the underlining reason we cannot yet hope to solve any of these global issues is because our species remains so divided. Man-made divisions of country, culture, race, beliefs, religions and on and on. Sub-dived even further by wealth, class and all matters of nonsensical divisions within the human species.

    As one united caring species, all of our global issues would be easily resolved. Can we do this still, while remaining so divided? I guess our only option now — is to try?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. True, there are a lot of divisions which makes solutions very far. But scientifically and economically speaking, it is all about energy and food. Thank u for reading and commenting, much appreciated ❤


  4. I’d concur if climate change wasn’t on a runaway course, scientifically agreed on to eventually cause global destruction if not reversed. When its full effects come to fruition, fixed economies, food and energy for everyone will matter little. In fact most likely it will destroy all that we have gained in these areas and then some. We’re talking possible “planetary” destruction and extinction of our species here! What could be more dire than that? That of course is my opinion while in recognition of yours. So I guess we’ll just have to agree on disagreeing? I enjoyed our conversation maylynno. Be Well!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Let’s call tradition what you call “traditions and religions.” Your programmatic call has already been taken up: By science. The very hard science that is burning our planet to ashes. Science has assumed a dogmatic guise wholly uncongenial to its very essence; scientism is the realization that the relativity of empirical knowledge (in the continuous synthesis of empirism) cannot fulfill the metaphysical functions of tradition.

    But now, in Heideggerian terms, science would not even be so much a relativism as outright nihilism. In that view, tradition would have to be re-understood, which means two things. First, tradition must be re-understood over the nihilism of hard science that has colonized modern Man. Second, re-understanding tradition means to understand its dialectics, which is a way to say that the actual tradition of our traditional past and present is not yet tradition.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. We need a synthesis of all this dialectic in hegelian terms because things can’t go on the way they are today. I don’t know if there is a way to overcome ideologies.
      Thank you for commenting

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Did the math. Everyone in the entire world can fit on Maui. Having visited many places and looked on the computer, there are vast areas unpopulated. It’s just in areas that population is heavy, but compared to the planet, we a very tiny species. Compared.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. You’re very welcome. But actually, I’m not saying anything different. This was common understanding when I was growing up. It’s something I realized I had from early on. Just understanding. Just looking at things for myself. I was having an interesting conversation with a lady (just now) discussing our sun and some of the research done. Then, the conversation went to the prison system, where she works as a counselor, and the dynamics. She was explaining that conversations like this are becoming a thing of the past.
        The reason I mention this is she was educating me about both subjects, information which I appreciated and will store for future consideration. Now, this might be difficult to understand, but I’ve seen others “get it,” my childhood friends got it, and I think she got it too. There’s a difference between understanding and understanding. In the first case, you get the information, see how the parts go together, see how the information goes down the rabbit trail so to speak. In the second, it’s real. There is a far cry difference between having information and really getting it. The difference is like reading about the Grand Canyon and being there, seeing it for yourself. It’s the difference between thinking you’ve solved a personal problem, perhaps talking to friends and other (In my friend’s case, a therapist.), then waking up and going “ah haaaa, I see it now.” Then the person’s life changes for the better.
        There is a type person that believes whatever comes out of their mouth. In some situations, they had a “strong” parent who kept telling them things (and supported them only when they agreed), maybe a mentor later, that they were looking for to adore and worship. From that point forward, the very personality they cling to becomes everything to them. They are what they are. And they absolutely can’t think for themselves. And when they are in doubt, because someone like me comes along, they rush back to their “colleagues” to get reinforcement. Then come back stronger. Seemingly. But they’re mists. And yet, they will do this to others. They will demand that others agree with them or “off with their he#ds.” A strange phenomenon. Yet, we have seen this with historical figures, even in bosses, and certainly in clicks. The thing to do is never doubt your own understanding. But also, be willing to relook.
        I think though, and thank you for the comment, that this will end my session here. I think I’ve shared enough and don’t want to belabor the point. It was important, for readers, for those who are easily led, for those on the fence, and for those looking for clear thinking in a world of disinformation or misjudgement. They can read my or others sites. I encourage them to read Nate Shiransky, C.S. Lewis, and historical figures like George Washington, the Federalists, Martin Luther King Junior, and many others. Learn about fractals, that will through people a loop. Just be willing to think for yourself. And what you don’t understand, say, I don’t understand, and not knowing is okay. Some things took decades before I understood. I’m still waiting on other ideas. But I won’t rush to say it’s this or that until I know.
        Understanding is a gift.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. True, there is understanding and understanding. And it is easy to be misled these days with news and fake news. Therefore, like u say it, we must keep on learning and processing the infos in order to think for ourselves. Critical thinking is not an inspiration coming down on us but a process of learning and thinking over and over. Thank you for your comment

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s