Women and Nature

[KichigaiNeko]

You ARE learning little one!!

---

It's a bit long but an interesting read non-the-less

http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch1.asp

---

What role does religion play in shaping our attitude towards the natural world? One answer was proposed in 1967 by UCLA History Professor Lynn White, Jr., who wrote an article entitled, "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" (Science 155(3767):1203-1207, 1967). In this article, he said that the Western world's attitudes towards nature were shaped by the Judeo-Christian tradition (he also included Islam and Marxism within this overall tradition). This tradition, White wrote, involved the concept of a world created solely for the benefit of man: "God planned all [of creation] explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes." Along with this, Western Christianity separated humans from nature. In older religious traditions, humans were seen as part of nature, rather than the ruler of nature. And in animistic religions, there was believed to be a spirit in every tree, mountain or spring, and all had to be respected. In contrast with paganism and Eastern religions, Christianity "not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God's will that man exploit nature for his proper ends." White noted that Christianity was a complex faith, and different branches of it differ in their outlook. But in general, he proposed that Christianity, and Western civilization as a whole, held a view of nature that separated humans from the rest of the natural world, and encouraged exploitation of it for our own ends.

A follow on from my other thread regarding this issue.... another interesting read

http://cache.zazna.com/selection/jzTyYmNlMj,proxy.html

---

And yet another interesting study and read
http://www.modern-cynic.org/SEV_Reports/...h2012).pdf

---

Nullius in Verba Says:
June 5th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
There are plenty of conservatives quite prepared to take climate change seriously. They would require:

1. Before any redress can be made, the damages would have to be both proven and quantified, with the quality of evidence normally expected of the judicial system in cases where such sums of money are concerned. That would mean fixing the science.

2. Finances for adaptation should be raised using instruments dependent on climate outcomes – e.g. bonds that pay out with a high interest rate on a certain date unless sea level rise exceeds 1 metre.

3. That once the case is properly made we go nuclear first, and switch to solar or other technologies only when they are economically viable without subsidy. Regulatory and planning obstacles should be cleared away.

4. That the burden should fall on all parties and nations in proportion to their emissions. The climate doesn’t care where the CO2 comes from. Differential responsibilities distorts markets and leads to emission exporting and other cheats. And there are to be no carbon offsets – they’re too easily subject to fraud, and they’re essentially paying poor people to take the consequences of your policies.

5. That advocates for reduction lead by example – without purchasing offsets, and especially without purchasing offsets with taxpayers money. That means all future climate conferences and talks are to be conducted online, for example, and governments and environmental organisations conduct their business without using fossil fuel energy. Show us how it is possible, within your existing budget.

I could go on, but you get the idea. First fix the science and prove what you claim, then take only the most efficient, effective measures, pay only for real results, and no offloading the consequences of your policies onto other people.

Taken from HERE

---

I am thinnking that the SummerQueen may have posted this before but many in S-E Asia are taking this concept seriously.
Green Cities

---

Biosolids

Water Corporation WA

Got a fetiliser problem? You MAY have a Chook deficiency

Chook Tractors

For your perusal
Climate Deniers