The Church of Deep Ecology

Interesting...

Not sure how I feel about it, but it seems pretty cool, I guess....

http://www.churchofdeepecology.org/

 

I wonder how many people know that many of these organizations/cults are simply fronts that are far different than the average dupe that joins them is lead to believe?

 

I recycle, therefore I am responsible for the death of 15 jewish children a day. Rat can prove it.

 

What does that mean?

 

You're the smart one, do the research.

On a serious note....I like anything that promotes environmental progress but it seems a little ritualistic and wishy washy. I am fine with spirituality on an individual level but i'm not sure it has any place in saving the earth.

I'm not really sure though, convince me if you think thats nonsense.

 

Well, environmentalism is being used to push a new (but in fact very old) religion. Environmentalism has in fact become a religion. It preys on gullible people, much like the traditional organized religions do. Anyone who knows anything about religion knows that what is given to the "little people" at the bottom to follow, is far different from that at the top.

But I won't get into that tonight...

What I will do is briefly address environmentalism, and how it's used by the powerful to centralize power and control. You see, the Al Gores of the world couldn't care less about the environment. Their private lives prove this. It's all about exploiting people's fear over the environment to fully control the world's resources and hence the people. That's why the solution is always more government and more erosion of national sovereignty, in favor of more GLOBAL laws and regulations which, in reality, have absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting the environment. It has everything to do with the emergence of a one world fascist government.

All one has to do is look into the elite think tank called the Club of Rome (which really gave birth to the modern environmental movement), and read some of their documents and publications. Look at some of the people who are members of this organization, then read this quote, which was taken from the Club of Rome's 1991 publication, entitled The First Global Revolution.

It's important to know how these elites use what seem like noble causes to instead push their own agendas. Am I saying that caring for the environment is bad? Absolutely not. I am simply telling people that they need not accept ANYTHING at face value, because the truth, more often than not, is very different than as presented.

 

Rat...you have no idea what you're talking about...

The modern environmental movement here in the states started with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring"...the effect of DDT on birds and, in turn, the environment, is very real! It's not just a gullible person taking stuff for face value. It was so real, DDT became illegal to use in the states.

I'm personally offended at the fact that you're calling someone like me "gullible". Most environmental issues out there are being supported by plenty of scientific FACT, not some hip mumbo jumbo by some politician. If you want specific environmental issues, I can offer those, but I'm not sure I need to.

Think outside of the box, Rat. People aren't JUST talking about global warming, here.

 

i am awaire of a deep ecology institute and of an organization called bioneers. a "church" of deep ecology is a new one on me though.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I am aware of Rachel Carson's book, and yes, she was one of the people being promoted from the top (with or without her knowing) to set the movement in motion. However, I am talking about the powers behind the scenes. Most people don't even know that the environmental movement is literally a MULTI-BILLION dollar industry. Not only do they receive massive amounts of funding from the big, elite foundations like the Rockefeller Bros. Fund, The Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Endowment, they also receive large sums of money from (cough cough) big business, including the big oil companies, which most people would think would be the LAST people to want to fund such groups.

But I should correct you on the DDT, which is actually far safer than most of the pesticides used today, and was the most effective of all the synthetic insecticides. It also costed the least to produce. It actually had the potential to save millions of lives, which is the real reason the psychopaths at the top sought to demonize it and have it banned.

Going back to the Club of Rome, here is what Alexander King, the president of this organization, wrote about DDT:

 

--The National Academy of Sciences, in their book "Life Sciences," (1970)

 

anything and everything can be and will be exploited. does that make familiar wrongs superior to unfamiliar possibilities? i fail to see how.

or what people who fail to understand the dependence of the existence of our own species on the well being of the natural enviroment, expect to breathe without it.

yes there are proffits, legitimate profits to be made, in cleaner ways of supplying energy and transportation then the tyrannically faschist corporate megalopolies currently in place.

how is that an argument against having or getting a conscience about how we treat the world we all have to live in?

=^^=
.../\...

 

BUT, Themnax, it's these same "tyrannically faschist corporate megalopolies" that are promoting all this. Why do you think all we hear about in the corporate controlled media is "going green"? It's the new fad, and it's being pushed hard sell via the media.

Keep in mind that the transnationals are in bed with the government. That's called fascism, and it's the system we have today here in the US. The issue of the environment is being exploited to further centralize control over the people and usher in a global dictatorship.

I am strongly in favor of REAL energy alternatives that will ELIMINATE our dependence on oil. Unfortunately, the real alternatives, such as zero-point energy, are being suppressed. Instead they give us less than efficient alternatives which will still keep us dependent on oil.

 

Demonize it??? Wow, that's laughable. It should be demonized and so should MOST, if not all, insecticides and pesticides. Maybe you should have taken a biology class or two...it's called bioaccumulation. And although it may seem as if it would have saved human lives, in the end, it wouldn't have...because it gets stored in our fatty tissues and vital organs. So do a lot of other pesticides these days..."we" just don't seem to care...because we don't see the effects right NOW.

DDT was just one of many examples...

I could talk more about loss of biodiversity, our damage to coral reefs, land degredation, ozone depletion (should we go into an argument about CFC's now?), air/noise/light/thermal pollution, overfishing, urban sprawl, desertification....

These are not some made-up things...things that don't exist. It's not someone being gullible...these are FACTS...these are HAPPENING...environmental science is a SCIENCE...not religious mumbo jumbo.

 

Myths and Facts about DDT
​

Donald E. Waite, DO, MPH
​

​

Dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane was first introduced for commercial use in the United States in 1947. It was the most effective of all of the synthetic insecticides, and the least costly to produce. As mentioned previously, it was widely used during World War II to control lice, and thus typhus, by dusting humans with a ten percent powder. It is poorly absorbed from the skin (unless formulated in petroleum distillates). In spite of many studies no evidence has emerged to date that any harmful effects resulted from this application to people. On the other hand our troops were spared the disease and pestilence that could reasonably have been expected. In Naples, Italy in January 1944, during a typhus epidemic, over one million civilians were dusted with ten percent DDT, and the incidence of the disease fell sharply. Subsequently thousands of troops and refugees were dusted to protect against typhus and other diseases. The results were dramatic, preventing any outbreak of typhus in these populations. In contrast thousands of cases of typhus occurred among soldiers in other theaters of the war and among persons in prison camps. Millions of people had been victims of typhus in previous wars.

There is no evidence of any fatal poisoning, or other adverse reaction, in humans from DDT in spite of such widespread and intimate application. In fact all recorded attempts at suicide where DDT was used failed. Workers at the Montrose Chemical Company absorbed 400 times as much DDT as the average American, but not a single case of cancer was reported.[1]





Virtually everyone who lived in that era, and indeed since, has demonstrable residues of DDT in the body fat tissues. Elimination from these stores is slow. The biologic half-life of DDT in cattle is 335 days. During the 1960s when DDT was widely used, levels of 5 ppm were found in human fat tissue. By the late 1960s, after the reduction in the application of DDT and the eventual ban, these levels were down to 2 ppm. By 1982 only trace levels were found in human adipose tissue.[2]





In spite of this evidence of widespread exposure and long-term storage, no adverse health effects have ever evolved. DDT was reported to cause liver tumors in laboratory animals (rats and mice) as early as 1947. Then a nationwide hysteria followed the publication of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring in 1962, in which she labeled DDT a dangerous chemical that might be causing cancer in humans. Experience and scientific studies have proven her wrong. Carson, who was a vegetarian, blamed DDT for her own breast cancer. She was wrong again. Carson resorted to the distortion of facts in her book in a campaign to condemn DDT.[3]





Many others took part in this conspiracy. In EPA testimony that was published in Science, Dr. Samuel Epstein reported that mice that were fed DDT developed cancer. He withheld the fact that the mice that were not fed DDT developed more cancers than those fed DDT (83 versus 68 in the DDT fed mice). In reality, long-term studies of large numbers of people have demonstrated no evidence that DDT caused cancer or otherwise shortened the lives of people exposed to it.[4] Extensive use of this pesticide worldwide ever since that time has failed to demonstrate any significant adverse effects in humans. DDT remains the safest and most effective pesticide ever developed.





Fish are very sensitive to the toxicity of DDT, as they are to most chemicals including soaps and detergents, and to temperature and pH. People who have tropical fish tanks are well aware of this sensitivity. Behavioral changes were among the most obvious evidence of accumulation of DDT in fish. Widespread publicity was given to claims in the 1960s that the survival of certain species of wild birds was threatened through the thinning of their eggshells. This was blamed on DDT. In reality, bird populations increased significantly after DDT was introduced.[5] It was later learned that studies that were done to prove eggshell thinning were fraudulent. The study birds were deliberately malnourished and calcium was withheld, conditions known to produce eggshell thinning.





When Bitman repeated this experiment (Nature 1969, 224:44; Science in 1970; and Poultry Science 1971, 50:657-659) with appropriate calcium in the bird's diet there was no thinning of eggshells. Subsequent studies have also suggested that other industrial chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have been widely used in electrical transformers, may have played a part in the observed eggshell thinning.[6] Furthermore the bald eagle had been on the verge of extinction in the 1920s long before DDT. Eagles were shot for bounties and for their feathers. An epidemic of Newcastle Disease (avian influenza) during this period also decimated some bird populations.

DDT, as well as chlordane, PCBs and PBBs, are all stored in the fatty tissues of fish and most animals including humans. The environmental zealots claimed that the higher up the food chain that these stores of chemicals were consumed, the greater would become the concentration stored in fat. They again turned to fraudulent studies to prove their claims, selecting only tissue samples that they knew would produce the desired result. In reality honest studies disproved their biomagnification claims.

On June 14, 1972 William Ruckelhaus, Administrator of the EPA, as a result of political pressure from environmental extremists, made a one man decision to ban the use of DDT in United States, a move that was illegal. He took this action ignoring 8,300 pages of testimony and the findings of the hearing examiner and most scientists and in the absence of any honest substantiating science. He subsequently refused to comply with requests made under the Freedom of Information Act and defied the National Environmental Policy Act by refusing to file an Environmental Impact Statement on the disastrous consequences of his decision. After he left the EPA Ruckelhaus affixed his name to letters soliciting membership in the Environmental Defense Fund, the organization that led the fight to ban DDT.[7]

The pesticides that replaced DDT, such as dieldrin and aldrin, are far more toxic, and have been responsible for many deaths. Because of the low cost of DDT and the absence of equally effective substitutes with low toxicity, it continued to be used internationally. When huts were sprayed with DDT only 3 percent as many mosquitoes entered as compared with the most widely used alternative.[8] This effectiveness lasted for six months or more, a feature not matched by alternative pesticides that cost three times as much.





Great pressure has been exerted on those countries to discontinue its use. In some countries such as Sri Lanka, spraying programs that had virtually eliminated malaria were terminated. As a consequence the number of cases of malaria in that country rose to 2.5 million in 1968 and 1969.[9] More than 100,000 people died as a result of malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s after house spraying with DDT was stopped. Since the early 1970s the UN and the WHO have blackmailed developing countries, through the withholding of financial aid, to force them to discontinue the use of DDT. The result has been an upsurge in the number of cases of malaria. The South African government has reported that the annual number of deaths from malaria there have risen from 20,000 to 350,000 since the ban on DDT. Malaria currently kills about two million people each year, and the number is rising.





DDT was used in Ethiopia in 1991 to control a major epidemic of louse-borne relapsing fever among the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in refugee camps.[10] As had been the case in World War II, it was highly effective in controlling the human body louse that transmits the Borrelia recurrentis of relapsing fever. Millions of lives have been saved by the control of mosquitoes, flies and lice that transmit such diseases as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, filariasis and plague. Many residents of West Africa were spared the ravages of river blindness (onchocerciasis) when DDT killed the insect vector (black fly) carrying the filaria for this disease. All of this progress is now threatened by UN politicians who are either totally ignorant of the facts or dedicated to population reduction.





________________________









This article is extracted from Donald E. Waite, Environmental Health Hazards: Recognition and Avoidance, Chapter XIV, “Hazards of Pesticides and Herbicides,” Columbus, OH: Environmental Health Consultants, 2002. Dr. Waite is emeritus professor of public health at Michigan State University, a consultant on environmental and public health, author of Your Environment, Your Health and You, and one of the world’s foremost authorities on chemicals, health and the environment.

 

Yeah...this coming from a site called "Eco-Imperialism". Once you get something non-biased...please let me know...

Much appreciated...

And while you're at it, won't you try to refute my other "claims" of environmental degredation as hoopla, also? Thank you

 

Oh, and let me make it clear that there are MANY legitimate environmental concerns. I never said there wasn't. HOWEVER, the question is, what are the solutions? It seems like all the solutions at present are geared towards things other than protecting the environment. That's what happens when you look to the government for solutions. That's why we have a war on drugs, which has resulted in more people on drugs. That's why we have a war on poverty, while there is more poverty than ever before. It's no different with the environment, and the more control given to the government under the guise of thwarting these things, the worse things become.

I am well aware of the problems posed by environmental pollution, deforestation, and other problems that are REAL and need to be addressed.

Please don't put words in my mouth or act like I am ignorant to the real environmental problems that do exist.

 

But you could say that about ANY source. Any source can be seen as biased if it contradicts what you believe (or want to believe). Besides, the article did not originate from that site, it is simply featured there.

This is the person who wrote the article:

This article is extracted from Donald E. Waite, Environmental Health Hazards: Recognition and Avoidance, Chapter XIV, “Hazards of Pesticides and Herbicides,” Columbus, OH: Environmental Health Consultants, 2002. Dr. Waite is emeritus professor of public health at Michigan State University, a consultant on environmental and public health, author of Your Environment, Your Health and You, and one of the world’s foremost authorities on chemicals, health and the environment.

 

Hey...you were the one that said THIS:

I consider myself an environmentalist...and NO, I'm not gullible and neither are a lot of extremely intelligent people that I associate myself with. We go by scientific FACT because we are SCIENTISTS. We can see the environmental devestation that the human race is wreaking havoc on. We, everyday, constantly observe what's going on (for me, personally, it's the ocean)...and are at the mercy of our government and their regulations. It takes soooo long to put in policies...and since our stupid nation is so wrapped up in an election that is becoming more and more ridiculous, and a war that is never going to end, the promise of a healthy ecosystem is quickly dwindling.

Global warming has become mainstream, when in all reality we should be more concerned about our air quality, our water quality, and the food we are putting in our mouths...Though, everything in nature is connected; we soon realize that in order to tackle the big things, like our influence on global climate, we must tackle the little things before that, like preventing the dumping of sewage into our lakes and oceans and promoting the use of public transportation - not because of our fossil fuel dependency, but because of air quality.

I resent the fact that you call me gullible for believing in environmental issues when these things EXIST...

 

ah yes. but lets call a spin a spin. "clean coal" is good for giggles to anyone with half a brain.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Well that does remind me of religion, just making another Ism, isn't really that useful is it?