Why Does the World Shut Down?

[Thesauron]

Why does the world shut down for a virus, and not, for example, for the threat to our climate?

[Alexa]

Government agencies imposed restrictions. The business closed themselves because of losses. There are lost of jobs that resulted from crashing economy. It is for the protection of everyone from the virus. We as publishers obey the organization. Its for the vindication of Jehovah's name as well.

[Thesauron]

Government agencies imposed restrictions. The business closed themselves because of losses. There are lost of jobs that resulted from crashing economy. It is for the protection of everyone from the virus. We as publishers obey the organization. Its for the vindication of Jehovah's name as well.

Many businesses closed because the governments demanded it.

 

I get what you’re saying, but why do governments shut down for a virus, but not for the dangers to human life caused by climate change?

[Alexa]

They based in "spanish" Influenza virus.

[carlos]

I think it may have to do with the virus being seen as an immediate danger. You catch the virus today and you can be dead in a few days.

People and governments rarely make sacrifices for things that might happen in some decades. Sacrifices are hard, so we tend to make them only when the danger is pressing and immediate.

[Brandon]

3 hours ago, Thesauron said:

 

Why does the world shut down for a virus, and not, for example, for the threat to our climate?

 

Lots of people have been trying to shut down the environmentally-destructive parts of this world for decades, with some results, but they are usually branded as eco-terrorists and radicals.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Brandon

[Thesauron]

Lots of people have been trying to shut down the environmentally-destructive parts of this world for decades, with some results, but they are usually branded as eco-terrorists and radicals.

Copernicus reports that global November 2020 temperatures reached a record high, and people don’t even flinch. Are they going to keep pretending that everything is fine and alright?

https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-global-november-temperatures-reached-record-high-while-europe-experienced-its-warmest

[carlos]

4 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

Copernicus reports that global November 2020 temperatures reached a record high, and people don’t even flinch. Are they going to keep pretending that everything is fine and alright?

If I am told I can't go to work for a couple weeks because there's a dangerous virus that might kill my family, I think most people would comply.

If I am told I cannot go to work anymore because temperature has reached a record high and it will become worse in the next decades, I can't stay home and starve.

One is much more immediate than the other.

[Brandon]

5 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

Are they going to keep pretending that everything is fine

Probably ya. The same way everyone keeps pretending that when they shop at a dollar store, or a clothing store, or an electronics store, that they aren’t giving tacit approval to the exploitation of human labour in developing countries with lax labour laws. People don’t like to see the bigger picture when doing so would require them to take responsibility, and even less so when it would require radical changes in their personal habits. 

[carlos]

11 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

Copernicus reports that global November 2020 temperatures reached a record high, and people don’t even flinch. Are they going to keep pretending that everything is fine and alright?

The only way to revert climate change now, if it can be reverted at all, would be to get rid of 90 percent of the world population, give up most technology and go back to a rural lifestyle with a vegetarian diet. I don't think the world will accept those conditions, no matter how serious the threat is.

[bohemian]

31 minutes ago, carlos said:

The only way to revert climate change now, if it can be reverted at all, would be to get rid of 90 percent of the world population, give up most technology and go back to a rural lifestyle with a vegetarian diet. I don't think the world will accept those conditions, no matter how serious the threat is.

Apart from that, it seems ok. 3 out of 4 ain’t bad.

[Dages]

3 hours ago, Thesauron said:

 

Why does the world shut down for a virus, and not, for example, for the threat to our climate?

 

Climate is very long term.

A virus could wipe mankind in a couple of years. It destroyed economy already

[Thesauron]

Climate is very long term.
A virus could wipe mankind in a couple of years. It destroyed economy already

The end result, though, is the same. People die while suffering, and societies are ruined. It seems to me people know that hey are heading that way and blindly keep going hoping that someone will come up with a solution sometime, while also ignoring that the only true solution is bowing to the authority of God’s son placed on the throne in Jehovah’s kingdom.

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, carlos said:

The only way to revert climate change... would be to get rid of 90 percent of the world population

With like a quarter (25%) of all humans today living on $1-2 per day, why would you possibly need to ‘get rid’ of them??

 

probably the top 20% of humans generate 80% of all pollution. 

[Dages]

1 hour ago, Thesauron said:

The end result, though, is the same. People die while suffering, and societies are ruined. It seems to me people know that hey are heading that way and blindly keep going hoping that someone will come up with a solution sometime, while also ignoring that the only true solution is bowing to the authority of God’s son placed on the throne in Jehovah’s kingdom.

Yes. People are thinking shorter and shorter term.

[carlos]

46 minutes ago, Brandon said:

With like a quarter (25%) of all humans today living on $1-2 per day, why would you possibly need to ‘get rid’ of them??

probably the top 20% of humans generate 80% of all pollution. 

I don't think income has to do with the amount of pollution we produce. Third World countries where people survive miserably are not precisely the cleanest, most ecological or less pollutant countries, rather the opposite. The most polluted country in the world is Bangladesh, followed by Pakistan, Mongolia and Afghanistan. Overpopulated and very poor countries. People who can hardly find anything to eat will not care for air quality. Their problem is not income, it's overpopulation.

 

Billions of people need to eat every day. That means farms are needed to feed all those mouths. Ecologists claim that cattle and pigs have a huge impact on the environment. Then all those people need clothes, shoes, transportation, bed, chairs, electricity, warm houses in winter... I'm not even mentioning technology. The planet simply cannot produce enough for so many people with the current system.

[Brandon]

I'm sorry Carlos but you're just plain wrong on this:

43 minutes ago, carlos said:

I don't think income has to do with the amount of pollution we produce

income actually has a lot to do with the amount of pollution that a person generates, and this is well-known. source and quote:

Quote

British charity Oxfam released a study that found the richest 10 percent of people produce half of the planet’s individual-consumption-based fossil fuel emissions, while the poorest 50 percent — about 3.5 billion people — contribute only 10 percent

 

You're also coming at this statistic from the wrong angle, which affects the conclusion you seem to have implied:

43 minutes ago, carlos said:

The most polluted country in the world is Bangladesh

And do you know what causes this pollution? Your clothing purchases. 60% of their economy is dedicated to making textiles which they can't even afford to wear! their clothing is especially cheap (for us), and consumers all around the world happily buy it. So this is not "bangladesh creating pollution" this is us, the privileged ones, happily exploiting their poverty to enrich our lifestyles while polluting their country. See my earlier point.

- related source: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/7/26/who-pollutes-the-rich-or-the-poor/

 

During the last century rich countries have perfected the art of outsourcing-pollution and misery: rich countries birth the most grotesque multinational corporations which then "enter" the "market" of these poor countries and then:

(1) exploits the dire condition of the extremely poor and

(2) the lack of environmental laws,

to create dirt-cheap disposable consumer goods. And then we have the gall of pointing the finger at them for polluting?  Give me a break.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Brandon

[carlos]

3 hours ago, Brandon said:

And then we have the gall of pointing the finger at them for polluting?  Give me a break.

Brandon, when I mentioned getting rid of 90 percent of the world population it seems you understood I referred to poor people in third world countries. I didn't. I didn't mean anyone in particular. In fact, I am not advocating getting rid of anyone at all. I'm just saying that our planet is overpopulated and that's,  among other reasons, what's causing climate change. Any possibility of reverting climate change necessarily involves reducing human population drastically. And obviously no society is going to be willing to make that sacrifice.

 

On the other hand, I don't think you are being fair here. I refuse to feel guilty for people who are exploited in poor countries. I don't like people being exploited and I don't like animals being exploited, but I just try to survive in my circumstances. I'm not exploiting anyone, I just go to the shop and buy the best food I reasonably can. When I need clothes or shoes I buy those I can afford with my limited income. And I am not complaining about my salary, a lot of brothers and sisters here have to survive with a lot less. We buy what we can afford and should not be make to feel shame for that.

 

The only solution for the ruin of earth is the Kingdom, and interestingly it will start by reducing human population drastically and educating people with a completely new way of living.

[Brandon]

45 minutes ago, carlos said:

when I mentioned getting rid of 90 percent of the world population it seems you understood I referred to poor people in third world countries

No, I didn't take it that way. But I was pointing out that by living in a consumer country, statistically speaking, you (and I) pollute more than the median human.

 

 

45 minutes ago, carlos said:

I'm just saying that our planet is overpopulated

and I'm respectfully disagreeing, since that is not a Biblical position you're taking: Our planet right now could easily feed 10 billion humans plus most (if not all) of the animals. Our own magazines have reiterated countless times that the earth is not overpopulated, but its resources are unequally distributed:

The world today has... half a billion who eat too much, and an equal number who eat scarcely enough to stay alive. . . . Equity of income distribution is worse today than at any time since records have been kept

   - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101990690

professor of population studies at Stanford University notes: “While overpopulation in the poor nations tends to keep them poverty-stricken, overpopulation in rich nations tends to undermine the life-support capacity of the entire planet.”

   - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101993241#h=12

edit: have to add this quote from the Reasoning book:  "if we assume... 20 billion people on earth... [it] can provide more than enough food. At the root of present food shortages is not any inability of the earth to produce sufficient but, rather, political rivalry and commercial greed."

 

 

45 minutes ago, carlos said:

I refuse to feel guilty for people who are exploited in poor countries.

While I'm inclined to point out how that^ is the exact opposite of a Christ-like attitude--since we have numerous accounts where Jesus felt sorry for the poor, even when he knew he couldn't help them-- instead, I'm going to simply remind you that I never told you nor anyone else how to feel.  I only stated some important facts. Whether anyone "feels anything" about them has no effect on the truthfulness of those statistics.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Brandon

[carlos]

3 hours ago, Brandon said:

I'm respectfully disagreeing, since that is not a Biblical position you're taking: Our planet right now could easily feed 10 billion humans plus most (if not all) of the animals. Our own magazines have reiterated countless times that the earth is not overpopulated, but its resources are unequally distributed:

Yes, that's true. Under Jesus' rule the earth will be able to sustain a higher population than it does today, without overexploiting its resources. But in the current system, it's undeniable that the earth contains more people than it can sustain. The lifestyle change it would require is impossible for humans to apply.

 

3 hours ago, Brandon said:

While I'm inclined to point out how that^ is the exact opposite of a Christ-like attitude--since we have numerous accounts where Jesus felt sorry for the poor, even when he knew he couldn't help them-- instead, I'm going to simply remind you that I never told you nor anyone else how to feel.  I only stated some important facts. Whether anyone "feels anything" about them has no effect on the truthfulness of those statistics.

I don't view things the same as you there. I feel sorry for the poor and exploited but I don't feel guilty for that exploitation they suffer, since I am not causing it. Those are two very different feelings. Jesus felt sorry for people that suffered but he didn't feel guilty for their suffering, since he didn't cause it. He helped those he could but understood things couldn't be fixed until he became the king.

 

You said that "us, the privileged ones, happily exploit their poverty to enrich our lifestyles while polluting their country" and that it's "your clothing purchases" [that is, mine] that cause exploitation and pollution. IMO those typical NGO-style statements are very inaccurate and are only meant to create a feeling of guilt (that NGOs exploit to take your money). Maybe you are privileged, I just live a normal quite modest life. I don't exploit anyone and don't pollute anyone's country, and certainly I am not happy about anyone being exploited. That road only takes to involvement in social justice movements and the like that, as every other human organization in Satan's world, are bound to fail.

Edited December 13, 2020 by carlos

[EccentricM]

2 hours ago, Brandon said:

The world today has... half a billion who eat too much, and an equal number who eat scarcely enough to stay alive. . . . Equity of income distribution is worse today than at any time since records have been kept

   - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101990690

professor of population studies at Stanford University notes: “While overpopulation in the poor nations tends to keep them poverty-stricken, overpopulation in rich nations tends to undermine the life-support capacity of the entire planet.”

   - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101993241#h=12

edit: have to add this quote from the Reasoning book:  "if we assume... 20 billion people on earth... [it] can provide more than enough food. At the root of present food shortages is not any inability of the earth to produce sufficient but, rather, political rivalry and commercial greed."

This is very true.

 

There is food to feed all, but so much is wasted because of an unbalanced social and economic system that the world's rulers are behind, and stupid practices with that which only serves the purpose of greed.

 

For example, here, it's illegal to give away food at the end of the day in a sandwich shop, bakery, takeway or alike. So much food is put into bins, edible food, tonns of it, not even expired. One woman in my local town who was a manager in a takeaway food shop got fired because she used to give the food at closing time (the same food which went into the TRASH BINS keep this in mind) to the homeless people in the street. Because it was against the "policies" of the company, or law or what have you. If she put it in the trash (obviously for no profitable gain) it was all good, but into the mouths of the hungry, equally for no profit? Big nope. And they were ordered to make sure to "seal" the bins, to prevent these people from dumpster diving for the wasted food.

 

So stupid and so unnecessary. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by EccentricM

[Brandon]

2 hours ago, carlos said:

those... statements are very inaccurate and are only meant to create a feeling of guilt

I'm sorry if my phrasing 'triggered' you so badly, perhaps I should rather have written it this way: exploitation of the poor in other countries has materially benefited you, Carlos. That is an established fact. I can even prove this using information you have shared previously. But I do believe we have seriously derailed the OP's (Thesauron's) original post, so perhaps we can leave it at this. If you'd like, we can start a new topic, or feel free to DM me.

[hatcheckgirl]

It’s all showing the huge imbalance that’s always existed, and now it is finally culminating to the situation we find ourselves in. Human mismanagement has caused changes to our planet, and this has been fuelled by greedy commercialism and our global world trade and inter-reliance. So, the govts of today only pay lip service to fixing poverty and solving earth’s climate issues, because they actually won’t give up their way of life.

 

 Won’t it be so good when our earth is cleansed?

[Alexa]

I would like to stress out that this government is in the side of Satan. Satan rules the world since he challenged Jehovah's sovereignty in the garden of Eden. We are in the opposite side of the world but we respect it anf obey its rules except if it stops our relationship with Jehovah. 

[Amygdala]

10 hours ago, Brandon said:

I was pointing out that by living in a consumer country, statistically speaking, you (and I) pollute more than the median human.

There is a foundation based in Amsterdam where many "cheap" clothing chain stores are becoming a member of their code of conduct and practices of fair industry production and manufacturing of clothing, and living up to the foundations standards. Many of these cheap clothing brand chains here in Germany (Takko stores for example), and also in various countries in Europe members are part of. Not sure of NAmerica. Usually there is a section in a clothing chain's website declaring they are a member of the organization: Fair Wear Foundation. That way you know you are buying from a store where clothing from origin of country is "ethically" produced.

 

Though we know even if humans make such noble ventures and try and address such issues, that it's all limiting at best. We can also try and do what we personally can for the environment, clothes we choose to wear, etc, but in the end only God can address such injustices.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Lieblingskind