#ecological consciousness

[delicatelysublimeforester]

Reconnecting with Nature: A Prescription for World Health Day

[colitcomedia]

Carbonxt Group Ltd Unveils New Joint Venture 'NewCarbon' in Investor Presentation

Carbonxt Group Ltd (CG1), a leading provider of advanced carbon products and activated carbon services, has announced an exciting joint venture (JV) called 'NewCarbon'. This transformative project aims to repurpose a Waste Water Treatment facility to manufacture premium activated carbon, primarily targeting PFAS removal in drinking water. In their recent investor presentation, Carbonxt Group Ltd showcased the strategic partnership with Kentucky Carbon Processing, highlighting the company's commitment to sustainability and market expansion.

Importance of NewCarbon JV:

1.1 Repurposing a Waste Water Treatment Facility:

The NewCarbon JV involves the conversion of an existing waste-to-water plant in Kentucky into a state-of-the-art production site for high-quality activated carbon. This innovative approach ensures the utilization of existing infrastructure, reducing capital investment and expediting market entry.

1.2 Meeting the Growing Demand for PFAS Removal:

The joint venture addresses the increasing demand for activated carbon solutions, particularly in the field of PFAS removal in drinking water. With impending regulatory changes imposing stricter standards, the NewCarbon project positions Carbonxt Group Ltd as a leading player in this burgeoning market.

Environmental Consciousness:

Carbonxt Group Ltd's commitment to ecological sustainability is evident in the NewCarbon project. The modified plant will utilize the gas produced during the activated carbon production process to power itself, effectively reducing the facility's carbon footprint. This eco-friendly approach aligns with global efforts to mitigate climate change and promotes a greener future.

Market Opportunities and Financial Implications:

3.1 Regulatory Landscape and Market Demand:

The upcoming regulations by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on PFAS removal in drinking water create significant market opportunities. Activated carbon is recognized as the most effective method for PFAS removal, positioning Carbonxt Group Ltd to meet the growing demand for these solutions.

3.2 Expansion and Market Share:

The NewCarbon project allows Carbonxt Group Ltd to significantly expand its product offering and market trajectory. By entering the PFAS removal market, the company strengthens its position and secures a larger share in the growing powdered activated carbon (PAC) water market.

3.3 Financial Prospects and Returns:

Managing Director Warren Murphy's strategic management has reduced capital investment by approximately USD 3.5 million, making the joint venture economically viable. The payment structure to NewCarbon is linked to project milestones, ensuring a mutually beneficial arrangement. Moreover, the venture's design provides the potential for doubling production capacity, further enhancing future revenue generation.

Managing Director Warren Murphy's Leadership:

Managing Director Warren Murphy brings a wealth of experience and expertise to Carbonxt Group Ltd. His successful track record in the financial industry, along with his global project footprints, highlights his pivotal role in the company's growth and innovation.

Conclusion:

Carbonxt Group Ltd's new joint venture, NewCarbon, marks a significant milestone in the company's expansion and market positioning. By repurposing a Waste Water Treatment facility, the company is well-equipped to meet the increasing demand for activated carbon solutions, particularly in PFAS removal in drinking water. This strategic move, driven by Managing Director Warren Murphy's leadership, demonstrates Carbonxt Group Ltd's commitment to sustainability, innovation, and financial growth. With a focus on market opportunities, environmental consciousness, and sound financial prospects, the NewCarbon JV sets the stage for a promising future for Carbonxt Group Ltd and its investors.

[vaelynez]

So we’ve established that Lyon’s an animal nerd. That’s basically canon. You can’t tell me he doesn’t know how to identify birds and spout off fun facts on a whim.

HOWEVER. A few weeks into an ecology course (whooo….gen eds. I am not a science girly) I’ve decided he’d live for that shit. Like trees can communicate about diseases so the other trees can protect themselves from it? Wild. He’d live for that shit. He’s a giant nerd.

[that-gay-jedi]

Ya know, it's wild how many species of trees are basically immortal and the ones that aren't live like 800 years and they all have this profound impact on the literal earth around them and shape landscapes and when gathered in groups they can alter climate patterns, human behaviour, and the selective evolution of animals yet we think of them as inert and helpless solely because they don't locomote

[wayti-blog]

One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.

– John Muir

[samissomar]

Wake up now Humans to your Divine inner Truth !...You're Eternal Spiritual Beings of Love's Consciousness !...You're all Light of the Infinite Universe !...You've a Sacred Mission which is not to destroy,but to Co-create Heaven on Earth !..

© Samissomar © Samissomar

http://samissomarspace.wordpress.com

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.7.1 But do classes actually exist?

So do classes actually exist, or are anarchists making them up? The fact that we even need to consider this question points to the pervasive propaganda efforts by the ruling class to suppress class consciousness, which will be discussed further on. First, however, let’s examine some statistics, taking the USA as an example. We have done so because the state has the reputation of being a land of opportunity and capitalism. Moreover, class is seldom talked about there (although its business class is very class conscious). Moreover, when countries have followed the US model of freer capitalism (for example, the UK), a similar explosion of inequality develops along side increased poverty rates and concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

There are two ways of looking into class, by income and by wealth. Of the two, the distribution of wealth is the most important to understanding the class structure as this represents your assets, what you own rather than what you earn in a year. Given that wealth is the source of income, this represents the impact and power of private property and the class system it represents. After all, while all employed workers have an income (i.e. a wage), their actual wealth usually amounts to their personal items and their house (if they are lucky). As such, their wealth generates little or no income, unlike the owners of resources like companies, land and patents. Unsurprisingly, wealth insulates its holders from personal economic crises, like unemployment and sickness, as well as gives its holders social and political power. It, and its perks, can also be passed down the generations. Equally unsurprisingly, the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than the distribution of income.

At the start of the 1990s, the share of total US income was as follows: one third went to the top 10% of the population, the next 30% gets another third and the bottom 60% gets the last third. Dividing the wealth into thirds, we find that the top 1% owns a third, the next 9% owns a third, and bottom 90% owns the rest. [David Schweickart, After Capitalism, p. 92] Over the 1990s, the inequalities in US society have continued to increase. In 1980, the richest fifth of Americans had incomes about ten times those of the poorest fifth. A decade later, they has twelve times. By 2001, they had incomes over fourteen times greater. [Doug Henwood, After the New Economy, p. 79] Looking at the figures for private family wealth, we find that in 1976 the wealthiest one percent of Americans owned 19% of it, the next 9% owned 30% and the bottom 90% of the population owned 51%. By 1995 the top 1% owned 40%, more than owned by the bottom 92% of the US population combined — the next 9% had 31% while the bottom 90% had only 29% of total (see Edward N. Wolff, Top Heavy: A Study of Increasing Inequality in America for details).

So in terms of wealth ownership, we see a system in which a very small minority own the means of life. In 1992 the richest 1% of households — about 2 million adults — owned 39% of the stock owned by individuals. The top 10%, owned over 81%. In other words, the bottom 90% of the population had a smaller share (23%) of investable capital of all kinds than the richest 1/2% (29%). Stock ownership was even more densely concentrated, with the richest 5% holding 95% of all shares. [Doug Henwood, Wall Street: Class racket] Three years later, “the richest 1% of households … owned 42% of the stock owned by individuals, and 56% of the bonds … the top 10% together owned nearly 90% of both.” Given that around 50% of all corporate stock is owned by households, this means that 1% of the population “owns a quarter of the productive capital and future profits of corporate America; the top 10% nearly half.” [Doug Henwood, Wall Street, pp. 66–7] Unsurprisingly, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than half of corporate profits ultimately accrue to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, while only about 8 percent go to the bottom 60 percent.

Henwood summarises the situation by noting that “the richest tenth of the population has a bit over three-quarters of all the wealth in this society, and the bottom half has almost none — but it has lots of debt.” Most middle-income people have most of their (limited) wealth in their homes and if we look at non-residential wealth we find a “very, very concentrated” situation. The “bottom half of the population claimed about 20% of all income in 2001 — but only 2% of non-residential wealth. The richest 5% of the population claimed about 23% of income, a bit more than the entire bottom half. But it owned almost two-thirds — 65% — of the wealth.” [After the New Economy, p. 122]

In terms of income, the period since 1970 has also been marked by increasing inequalities and concentration:

“According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez — confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office — between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent.” [Paul Krugman, “The Death of Horatio Alger”, The Nation, January 5, 2004]

Doug Henwood provides some more details on income [Op. Cit., p. 90]:

Changes in income, 1977–1999 real income growth 1977–99

Share of total income

1977

1999

Change

poorest 20%

-9%

5.7%

4.2%

-1.5%

second 20%

+1

11.5

9.7

-1.8

middle 20%

+8

16.4

14.7

-1.7

fourth 20%

+14

22.8

21.3

-1.5

top 20%

+43

44.2

50.4

+6.2

top 1%

+115

7.3

12.9

+5.6

By far the biggest gainers from the wealth concentration since the 1980s have been the super-rich. The closer you get to the top, the bigger the gains. In other words, it is not simply that the top 20 percent of families have had bigger percentage gains than the rest. Rather, the top 5 percent have done better than the next 15, the top 1 percent better than the next 4 per cent, and so on.

As such, if someone argues that while the share of national income going to the top 10 percent of earners has increased that it does not matter because anyone with an income over $81,000 is in that top 10 percent they are missing the point. The lower end of the top ten per cent were not the big winners over the last 30 years. Most of the gains in the share in that top ten percent went to the top 1 percent (who earn at least $230,000). Of these gains, 60 percent went to the top 0.1 percent (who earn more than $790,000). And of these gains, almost half went to the top 0.01 percent (a mere 13,000 people who had an income of at least $3.6 million and an average income of $17 million). [Paul Krugman, “For Richer”, New York Times, 20/10/02]

All this proves that classes do in fact exist, with wealth and power concentrating at the top of society, in the hands of the few.

To put this inequality of income into some perspective, the average full-time Wal-Mart employee was paid only about $17,000 a year in 2004. Benefits are few, with less than half the company’s workers covered by its health care plan. In the same year Wal-Mart’s chief executive, Scott Lee Jr., was paid $17.5 million. In other words, every two weeks he was paid about as much as his average employee would earn after a lifetime working for him.

Since the 1970s, most Americans have had only modest salary increases (if that). The average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation) went from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999. That is a mere 10 percent increase over nearly 30 years. Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top 100 C.E.O.‘s went from $1.3 million — 39 times the pay of an average worker — to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers.

Yet even here, we are likely to miss the real picture. The average salary is misleading as this does not reflect the distribution of wealth. For example, in the UK in the early 1990s, two-thirds of workers earned the average wage or below and only a third above. To talk about the “average” income, therefore, is to disguise remarkable variation. In the US, adjusting for inflation, average family income — total income divided by the number of families — grew 28% between 1979 and 1997. The median family income — the income of a family in the middle (i.e. the income where half of families earn more and half less) grew by only 10%. The median is a better indicator of how typical American families are doing as the distribution of income is so top heavy in the USA (i.e. the average income is considerably higher than the median). It should also be noted that the incomes of the bottom fifth of families actually fell slightly. In other words, the benefits of economic growth over nearly two decades have not trickled down to ordinary families. Median family income has risen only about 0.5% per year. Even worse, “just about all of that increase was due to wives working longer hours, with little or no gain in real wages.” [Paul Krugman, “For Richer”, Op. Cit.]

So if America does have higher average or per capita income than other advanced countries, it is simply because the rich are richer. This means that a high average income level can be misleading if a large amount of national income is concentrated in relatively few hands. This means that large numbers of Americans are worse off economically than their counterparts in other advanced countries. Thus Europeans have, in general, shorter working weeks and longer holidays than Americans. They may have a lower average income than the United States but they do not have the same inequalities. This means that the median European family has a standard of living roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family — wages may even be higher.

As Doug Henwood notes, ”[i]nternational measures put the United States in a disgraceful light… The soundbite version of the LIS [Luxembourg Income Study] data is this: for a country th[at] rich, [it] ha[s] a lot of poor people.” Henwood looked at both relative and absolute measures of income and poverty using the cross-border comparisons of income distribution provided by the LIS and discovered that ”[f]or a country that thinks itself universally middle class [i.e. middle income], the United States has the second-smallest middle class of the nineteen countries for which good LIS data exists.” Only Russia, a country in near-total collapse was worse (40.9% of the population were middle income compared to 46.2% in the USA. Households were classed as poor if their incomes were under 50 percent of the national medium; near-poor, between 50 and 62.5 percent; middle, between 62.5 and 150 percent; and well-to-do, over 150 percent. The USA rates for poor (19.1%), near-poor (8.1%) and middle (46.2%) were worse than European countries like Germany (11.1%, 6.5% and 64%), France (13%, 7.2% and 60.4%) and Belgium (5.5%, 8.0% and 72.4%) as well as Canada (11.6%, 8.2% and 60%) and Australia (14.8%, 10% and 52.5%).

The reasons for this? Henwood states that the “reasons are clear — weak unions and a weak welfare state. The social-democratic states — the ones that interfere most with market incomes — have the largest [middles classes]. The US poverty rate is nearly twice the average of the other eighteen.” Needless to say, “middle class” as defined by income is a very blunt term (as Henwood states). It says nothing about property ownership or social power, for example, but income is often taken in the capitalist press as the defining aspect of “class” and so is useful to analyse in order to refute the claims that the free-market promotes general well-being (i.e. a larger “middle class”). That the most free-market nation has the worse poverty rates and the smallest “middle class” indicates well the anarchist claim that capitalism, left to its own devices, will benefit the strong (the ruling class) over the weak (the working class) via “free exchanges” on the “free” market (as we argue in section C.7, only during periods of full employment — and/or wide scale working class solidarity and militancy — does the balance of forces change in favour of working class people. Little wonder, then, that periods of full employment also see falling inequality — see James K. Galbraith’s Created Unequal for more details on the correlation of unemployment and inequality).

Of course, it could be objected that this relative measure of poverty and income ignores the fact that US incomes are among the highest in the world, meaning that the US poor may be pretty well off by foreign standards. Henwood refutes this claim, noting that “even on absolute measures, the US performance is embarrassing. LIS researcher Lane Kenworthy estimated poverty rates for fifteen countries using the US poverty line as the benchmark… Though the United States has the highest average income, it’s far from having the lowest poverty rate.” Only Italy, Britain and Australia had higher levels of absolute poverty (and Australia exceeded the US value by 0.2%, 11.9% compared to 11.7%). Thus, in both absolute and relative terms, the USA compares badly with European countries. [Doug Henwood, “Booming, Borrowing, and Consuming: The US Economy in 1999”, pp.120–33, Monthly Review, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 129–31]

In summary, therefore, taking the USA as being the most capitalist nation in the developed world, we discover a class system in which a very small minority own the bulk of the means of life and get most of the income. Compared to other Western countries, the class inequalities are greater and the society is more polarised. Moreover, over the last 20–30 years those inequalities have increased spectacularly. The ruling elite have become richer and wealth has flooded upwards rather than trickled down.

The cause of the increase in wealth and income polarisation is not hard to find. It is due to the increased economic and political power of the capitalist class and the weakened position of working class people. As anarchists have long argued, any “free contract” between the powerful and the powerless will benefit the former far more than the latter. This means that if the working class’s economic and social power is weakened then we will be in a bad position to retain a given share of the wealth we produce but is owned by our bosses and accumulates in the hands of the few.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, there has been an increase in the share of total income going to capital (i.e., interest, dividends, and rent) and a decrease in the amount going to labour (wages, salaries, and benefits). Moreover, an increasing part of the share to labour is accruing to high-level management (in electronics, for example, top executives used to paid themselves 42 times the average worker in 1991, a mere 5 years later it was 220 times as much).

Since the start of the 1980s, unemployment and globalisation has weakened the economic and social power of the working class. Due to the decline in the unions and general labour militancy, wages at the bottom have stagnated (real pay for most US workers is lower in 2005 than it was in 1973!). This, combined with “trickle-down” economic policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, tax raises for the working classes, the maintaining of a “natural” law of unemployment (which weakens unions and workers power) and cutbacks in social programs, has seriously eroded living standards for all but the upper strata — a process that is clearly leading toward social breakdown, with effects that will be discussed later (see section D.9).

Little wonder Proudhon argued that the law of supply and demand was a “deceitful law … suitable only for assuring the victory of the strong over the weak, of those who own property over those who own nothing.” [quoted by Alan Ritter, The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 121]

[rebeccathenaturalist]

Umwelt: What Matters Most in the World

(Originally posted at my blog at https://rebeccalexa.com/umwelt-what-matters-most-in-the-world/)

I will be the first to admit that a lot of philosophy tends to bend my brain in ways that I’m really not prepared for. I’m a very earthy creature, and I am more comfortable in physical, solid spaces than in abstract conceptualizations. Even the modalities of psychology I gravitated toward in grad school tended to be based in our interactions with physical nature, and measurable effects thereof. But it was a casual discussion on philosophy with regards to the awareness of animals that introduced me to the concept of umwelt.

Originally coined by biologist Jakob Johann Freiherr von Uexküll, umwelt describes the unique way in which a given animal experiences the world around it. Uexküll looked at how various beings take in information through their senses; the way that a blind, deaf worm engages with their environment through taste and touch is very different from how we with our hearing and color vision connect with our world. Even when I am walking with my dog out in the woods, her interpretation of what’s going on around us is going to be much more heavily influenced by hearing, and especially smell, than my sight-heavy approach. (And when we engage with each other, our respective umwelten create a semiosphere!)

So umwelt is essentially the sum total of all the ways in which an animal takes in that sensory information and attaches meaning to each fragment thereof. It’s how they tell the story of the world around them, and understand their place in it. And they rank the signs according to importance; umwelt is more strongly formed by things that are of particular interest to the animal.

That means that umwelt, rather than being constant throughout life, is always shifting according to new sensory input, or changes in how the senses work; as my dog gets older, her hearing and vision may not be as good as they were, but if her nose stays sharp then smells may become an even more important part of how she navigates her world.

Or look at a Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), which is born as a blind, deaf little hairless being with two front legs that they use to crawl to the mother’s abdominal pouch. At that time their umwelt centers on seeking and retaining the warmth of their mother’s pouch, and the sensation of the constant flow of warm, nourishing milk. After about ten weeks they leave the pouch as a miniature furry little possum and travel on their mother’s back while learning to walk; their umwelt has expanded quite a bit to include the sight and smell of their mother, the visual and scent cues that tell them how close they are to known food sources, and visual, sound, and audio information warning of various dangers. At around five months, the opossum becomes independent, and their mother fades from their umwelt while being replaced by an even larger network of food, danger, and perhaps even potential mates. Over a lifetime, as the opossum’s senses develop (and, with age, decline) and their priorities shift, so does their umwelt evolve with them.

This then led me into a bit of a rabbit hole with biosemiotics. Semiotics is the study of symbols and the communication of meaning, to include communication with the self. Biosemiotics, then, is how non-human beings assign meaning to various things in their lives, and interpret the world they live in. Zoosemiotics specifically refers to the semiotics of animals, like the examples I’ve given so far, while endosemiotics (aka phytosemiotics or vegetative semiotics) is semiotics at a cellular or even molecular level.

One example of endosemiotics can be found in our immune systems. A B lymphocyte can recognize an invader such as a virus or bacteria, and it sends out a signal (an antigen) to T lymphocytes that then attack the invader. The B lymphocyte’s umwelt consists of information received through surface receptors that can detect certain proteins and other molecules, and the response it’s programmed to have as a result of detecting an invader. The T lymphocyte’s umwelt, on the other hand, centers on the B lymphocyte’s antigen signal, as well as the invader itself.

Biosemiotics is important because it moves meaning-making beyond humans, demonstrating that we are not the only beings who assign more importance to one part of our world than another. It promotes the idea that human language is not necessary for an organism to be able to find meaning in their environment. I’m cautious about anthropomorphization–assigning human traits to non-human beings–but biosemiotics allows each being to be its own unique self, rather than being gauged by human standards.

It’s all too easy for me to get overwhelmed by just how technical some of the discussion over biosemiotics can get (especially when delving into the “semotics” part of it!) But my takeaway is that it’s nice to have a term–umwelt–that encapsulates the unique experience that every animal, plant, fungus, slime mold, and other being has, no matter how large or small its world may be.

I can envision millions upon millions of overlapping umwelten in every ecosystem, becoming semiospheres whenever two or more of those umwelten nudge, slide, or crash into each other. I’m already delighted by knowing that I myself contain several ecosystems, with microbiomes in my organs and on my skin and more. But I can now also consider the umwelten and semiospheres of the lymphocytes in my immune system, along with all the other cells that are carrying on their existences within my various tissues, fluids, and so forth.

Of course, this gets into discussions of whether umwelt requires some level of consciousness, the nature of consciousness, sentience vs. sapience, etc., etc., all of which are the sort of headache-inducing philosophical discussions that I try to avoid at this stage of my life. So I can understand that this whole umwelt-biosemiotics thing is still being hammered out and explored and critiqued, but also use it to augment my own personal model of my world, internal and external (my innenwelt!) And for now, umwelt is a perfectly good shorthand for “the unique way in which an organism experiences its environment.”

Did you enjoy this post? Consider taking one of my online foraging and natural history classes, checking out my other articles, or picking up a paperback or ebook I’ve written! You can even buy me a coffee here!

[sourkitsch]

Do you ever think you’re not meant for this world and would fit so much more easily into the depraved sex horror mutilation novels you’re so fond of

[omegaphilosophia]

Native American Spirituality: A Path of Harmony with the Earth

In a world facing pressing environmental challenges, the need for a sustainable and holistic approach to our relationship with the planet has become increasingly apparent. Native American spirituality offers a unique perspective that emphasizes a deep connection and reverence for the Earth. In this blog post, we will explore why Native American religion stands out as a path that holds valuable lessons for humanity's harmonious coexistence with nature.

1 - Ecological Wisdom: Native American religions have long recognized the interconnectedness of all living beings and the environment. They view nature as a sacred and interconnected web of life, where every entity, from animals and plants to rivers and mountains, possesses inherent value and deserves respect. This ecological wisdom teaches us the importance of living in harmony with the Earth and embracing sustainable practices that honor the delicate balance of ecosystems.

Example: The Navajo people's belief in the interconnectedness of all things is reflected in their concept of "Hózhǫ́ǫ́gįį́," which encompasses beauty, balance, harmony, and health. It promotes living in alignment with the natural world, acknowledging the interconnectedness of all living beings and the responsibility to maintain harmony within the environment.

2 - Stewardship and Conservation: Native American spirituality emphasizes the role of humans as stewards of the Earth rather than dominant rulers. The concept of stewardship recognizes our responsibility to protect and preserve the natural world for future generations. Many Native American tribes have traditionally practiced sustainable land and resource management, showing respect for the Earth's gifts and ensuring their responsible use.

Example: The Iroquois Confederacy's Great Law of Peace emphasizes the importance of considering the well-being of future generations in decision-making. This principle reflects a deep respect for the environment and a commitment to ensuring the continuity and sustainability of resources.

3 - Rituals and Ceremonies: Native American religions often incorporate rituals and ceremonies that foster a connection with nature and express gratitude for the Earth's abundance. These practices serve as reminders of our interconnectedness with the natural world and help cultivate a sense of reverence and respect for the environment.

Example: The Sun Dance ceremony, practiced by various Plains tribes, symbolizes renewal and the cycle of life. It involves fasting, prayer, and dancing in harmony with nature, reinforcing the bond between humans and the Earth.

4 - Spirituality in Everyday Life: Native American spirituality emphasizes the integration of spiritual beliefs into everyday life. It encourages a deep sense of awareness, gratitude, and mindfulness towards the natural world. This approach nurtures a profound respect for the Earth and fosters a sustainable way of living in harmony with nature.

Example: The concept of "Mitakuye Oyasin" among the Lakota people expresses the belief that all beings are interconnected and part of the same spiritual family. This understanding inspires a sense of responsibility and care for the well-being of all creatures and the environment.

Native American spirituality offers a valuable perspective on our relationship with the Earth, emphasizing ecological wisdom, stewardship, and a deep reverence for the interconnectedness of all life. By embracing these teachings and integrating them into our lives, we can cultivate a harmonious and sustainable approach to coexisting with the planet. The wisdom and practices of Native American religions serve as a profound source of inspiration and guidance as we navigate the environmental challenges of our time and strive to create a better future for generations to come.

[poligraf]

Our future depends on whether we feel like part of this one whole or whether we feel we're separate.

David Bohm « Bohm also mentioned the dangers we face as a society and the changes we will have to make in our thinking in order to have a future. He said we need a more holistic approach to the ecological problem and must find something else in life besides economic growth; if it continues unchecked, it will destroy the planet. The emerging change in consciousness is the challenge and the key: "Our future depends on whether we feel like part of this one whole or whether we feel we're separate. » [via Implicity]

[delicatelysublimeforester]

UNEA-6: Nurturing Harmony Between Humanity and Nature

[bodyalive]

* * * *

A Shamanic View:

Medicine for the Earth by Sandra Ingerman

In all spiritual traditions it is taught that everything that manifests in the physical world starts in the invisible realms of spirit.

We must remember that a baby grows in the womb. Trees and plants start with a seed that is nurtured in the earth and then expands into roots, branches, leaves, buds, fruits, and flowers.

Creation comes through us.

We often expect change just to happen magically without the inner work that is needed to create outer change. We want science to magically create "a cure" for all the ills of our times. But the true changes we are looking for must come from within. We need to incorporate spiritual practices into our daily lives and live the practices.

We need to be able to work through the dark states of consciousness and transform them into golden light. This is the true meaning of alchemy. And then our outer world will reflect our state of light back to us.

We must remember that we are not just form and matter. We are luminous beings. And our destiny is to radiate light.

Right now many of us walk around with unexamined thoughts, attitudes, and emotions. We live a life filled with fear and this generates states of hate and war. We believe that there is scarcity of resources and that we are limited in what we can create. This is a reflection of how we live from a place of separation.

The ultimate teaching is, "It is who we become that changes the world and not what we do." The part of us that is "becoming" involves remembering that we are spiritual beings whose destiny is to radiate light and channel unconditional love. We came here to learn about the power of love and to create from love. The part that we are "doing" involves how we walk on this earth as conscious beings. We must be conscious of every action, thought, and word. For once again, our outer world is a reflection of our inner state.

Excerpted from 'Spiritual Ecology: The Cry of the Earth', chapter 'Medicine for the Earth' by Sandra Ingerman.

Albarran Cabrera   —–   Instagram

The Mouth of Krishna

2022, #60907. Pigments, gampi paper and gold leaf

[felixwylde]

The Last Empire: When the Earth Remembers

In an alternate, turbulent world, Donald Trump has declared himself “President for Life” and “Supreme Leader” of the United States. His regime quickly turns authoritarian, fueled by an intense nationalistic ideology. With the U.S. crippled by massive climate devastation—its once-fertile Midwest now a desolate wasteland—Trump pushes a campaign to expand his influence overseas. He declares his…

[sydweedon]

Green Earth

A gallery of my own photography on the theme of "the Green Earth"

[probablyasocialecologist]

All the takes are correct and yet they also miss the point. Yes, it was insane for the Democrats to think they could win by running a soulless candidate, without a shred of progressive policy vision, pursuing endorsements from neocon war-hawks everybody hates, while arming and funding a genocide, and belittling and crushing those who have enough morality to protest it. It is enraging that the Democrats are so smug and blind to this. But these are all just symptoms. The deeper reality is that liberalism has failed, liberalism is dead, and people urgently need to wake up to this fact and respond accordingly. It is a defunct ideology that cannot offer any meaningful solutions to our social and ecological crises and it must be abandoned. Democrats have proven over and over again that they cannot accept even basic steps like public healthcare, affordable housing, and a public job guarantee - things that would dramatically improve the material, social and political conditions of the working classes. And they cannot accept a public finance strategy that would steer production away from fossil fuels and toward green transition to give us a shot at a liveable future. Why? Because these things run against the objectives of capital accumulation. And for liberals capital is sacrosanct. They will do whatever it takes to ensure elite accumulation, it is their only consistent commitment. At home, they suppress and demonize progressive and socialist tendencies. Abroad, they engage in endless wars and violence to suppress input prices in the global South and prevent any possibility of sovereign economic development. The Democrats have done all this purposefully and knowingly, for my whole life, not as some kind of "mistake" but in full consciousness that it is in the interests of capital. And because liberalism cannot address our crises, and because it crushes socialist alternatives, it inevitably paves the way for right-wing populism. They know this pattern, and yet they risk it every time - this election being only the most recent example. They did it in 2016, when they actively crushed the Sanders campaign and sent Trump to the White House. They do it because ultimately they (and I mean the liberal ruling class here) don't really mind if fascists take power, so long as the latter too ensure the conditions for capital accumulation. They 100% prefer this to the possibility of a socialist alternative. So, progressives have to face reality. The dream of "converting" the Democratic party is dead. This is now a fact and it must be accepted. The only option is to build a mass-based movement that can reclaim the working classes and mobilize a political vehicle that can integrate disparate progressive struggles into a unified and formidable political force and achieve substantive transformation. This will take real work, actual organizing, but it must be done and that process must begin now.

Jason Hickel