Population Nightmare

[HURRITT ENYETO]

With the Global population reaching the historic figure of 7 Billion yesterday, I thought it might be appropriate to take a look at some statistics regarding populations.

As an aid in perspective, did you know that if you started to count to 1 million right now (at 1 per second) it would take you 11 days to count to 1 million!!
If you were to count to 1 Billion it would take you 31 YEARS!!
People use these figures all the time nowadays with little idea of how HUGE these numbers really are.

So yesterday the Global populace reached 7 Billion
You can add another 166,000 since then! There will be an average of 298,600, Births today.
There will be 84,000,00 Deaths today.
There will be at least another 63,000,000 people born this year.

916,616,023 Undernourished people in the world
1,548,171,171 Overweight people in the world
16,793 People who died of hunger today
848,466,912 People with no safe drinking water source
15,373 Days to the end of oil
60,800 Days to the end of gas
*these figures are increasing at an unbelievable rate, please visit http://www.worldometers.info/ there are some shocking facts there.

Our Global population was only 370 million in 1350.
It will be 10.5 billion by 2050

With our modern day lifestyles there is just no way this can continue. In the 1950's and 60's you were considered lucky if you owned a T.V, Today families in well developed Nations can own anything up to 5 T.V's.
Every generation expects more and more. Today we expect Laptops, games consoles, Ipads, Ipods, smart phones, GPS, satellite TV, more and more clothes, food.........and on and on (you get what I'm saying)

Any fool can see that each new generation expects more and more 'Stuff' and there is NO WAY this can continue indefinitely. The planet's resource's are running out FAST.
At this moment in time Planet Earth is DOOMED.

So what are we going to do about it? Can we do anything about it?
Hows about we start by consuming Less of everything, allowing alternative energy sources to be utilised and educating our children and all future generations not to be so greedy!!

The Powers That Be clearly know all this and they know it cannot continue. Do they have a plan? and is it positive or negative?

I just thought it might be prudent to have this discussion now with the 7,000,000,000 milestone being reached yesterday.

This video shows how populations have grown and spread since the year 1A.D (it reminds me of a disease spreading) lol


Hurritt



Similar Articles:

• The illuminaties worst nightmare.
• The Moon Is Your Worst Nightmare!
• Population Nightmare
• Population Nightmare
• Nightmare scenario: U.S. deflation risks rising

[Dex]

Sadly, all of the radiation exposure (ongoing and recent) increases infertility and decreases life span. It is heartbreaking to think about the increasingly massive number of people who will die (and also die now) from cancer at an early age. The planet may be becoming too poisoned to sustain life -- but if you work to prevent that, you are accused of being a deluded environmentalist. It is very frustrating, especially when one thinks of what our kids will be facing.

In terms of solutions, one is to to support access to contraceptives and education globally and at home. I also like your ideas about reducing consumption and increasing alternative energy.

Ironic that the 7th billion person was born on Halloween. It is scary, but still worth applying positive action.

[Ross]

Here is some interesting number crunching:

7 billion on the Planet could all fit into the country of France living as condenced as the city of Paris...

Ross

[Chicodoodoo]

There is no doubt in my mind that the human population is beginning to place excessive demands on the regenerative properties of the planet. Population growth is making things progressively (exponentially, actually) worse. Population reduction is necessary, unless we correct our bad habits of polluting everything, which doesn't seem likely.

Population reduction is easy over the long term by limiting the birth rate to two children per female. That doesn't seem like a harsh imposition to me, if it can be accomplished through mostly voluntary means, which I think it can. When our survival is at stake, not to mention our quality of life, we are capable of much greater sacrifice than voluntarily limiting the birth rate, so it shouldn't be that big a deal.

By the way, I practice what I preach. I have two children. It was no sacrifice at all to have only two. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that the quality of their upbringing would have been diminished if I had had more than two children.

[Modwiz]

It is not the numbers as much as the lifestyles. Hurritt points that out in mentioning the way we live and the 'stuff' we demand. That part is fixable as the demand is largely driven by the producers putting it into the hypnotizing media creating the 'need' for 'stuff'.

I wouldn't want to live in a population as crowded together as Paris but there is a lot more space on this beautiful planet than France affords. The biggest problem is the controllers and the fact that our technology would have had us tapping into free energy since at least the time of Tesla. This source would immediately halt much of the planets' ecological devastation and also allow for people to live far and wide because 'grid' considerations would be lessened or eliminated. Thus technology allowed to keep up with population growth would be self balancing. Getting off planet is definitely part of this growth process.

The controllers figure into the picture once more here because we should have unfettered access to our home planet. Landlords are an abomination. The removal of the survival of the fittest meme from our psychology would also catapult spiritual growth because hoarding and greed would look like the mental illnesses they are.

[Akhenaten]

Yes these figures are sobering indeed. Makes you wonder what good human consciousness is if our species cannot regulate its own population. I suppose it was 'natural' that the population should balloon in response to bigger crops, more efficient means of producing, storing and distributing food - sort of a bell-curve phenomenon. Of course we know when the curve reaches its apex, it soon stalls out and then suddenly plummets. That stall-point is when the systems no longer support growth. Everyone feels we are getting close to that point. Reminds me of the stories in Sumeria about the gods getting fed up with the people, all the noise they were making, and how crowded everything had become. Then the flood came over, scoured everything away. It was a new beginning.

But why do we have to continually push the system to the limit, apparently cyclically, over the ages?

What good are brains for if they are not used? Sometimes I really feel fed up with everything.

[Ross]

What good are brains for if they are not used?

Such a simple yet profound statement.

One I ponder often.

Ross

[Luke]

The problem with systems is

(1) do we understand their internal logic
(2) can we expand/extend system, so it would be more useful (say, accommodate more people)

So far, we fail on both counts.

Trying to hammer "nature" into "our ways" is impossible. Either she will break us or we break her. Obviously neither of these outcomes is not acceptable for any sane being, and yet this is what is observable.

And yet there is no middle ground either. Either something is broke or not.

There is great potential in this planet, which stems from cooperation, dialogue with "forces of nature" - but this avenue is not pursued.

Even so called ecologist do not understand that there is a living, breathing creature involved, one that is quite conscious - and it is adopting to us as we speak ... Less species of birds, more nasty strains of viruses and bacteria. This is not coincidence if you ask me, and I am not talking about engineered diseases.

So far the answer f of "cooperate or exploit" is dead-set on exploitation, and there are consequences of this civilization-wide stance.

Cooperating with nature, there is no real limit of population - it is only set by our designing capabilities. Plunder on the other hand means diminishing resources for every next time-period. Guess which way we are going.

[lightblue]

Yes these figures are sobering indeed. Makes you wonder what good human consciousness is if our species cannot regulate its own population. I suppose it was 'natural' that the population should balloon in response to bigger crops, more efficient means of producing, storing and distributing food - sort of a bell-curve phenomenon. Of course we know when the curve reaches its apex, it soon stalls out and then suddenly plummets. That stall-point is when the systems no longer support growth. Everyone feels we are getting close to that point. Reminds me of the stories in Sumeria about the gods getting fed up with the people, all the noise they were making, and how crowded everything had become. Then the flood came over, scoured everything away. It was a new beginning.

But why do we have to continually push the system to the limit, apparently cyclically, over the ages?

What good are brains for if they are not used? Sometimes I really feel fed up with everything.

ahkenaten, which is the system you hold so dear to your heart? perhaps do ask yourself that question ....

as for me, i'd much rather have brain intact, than an overused one and turned to mash...

"may our reach exceed our grasp....or what's the heaven for" - r browning


-----------------

hurritt, i suggest you watched the video below...maybe then you will see the human population is not a desease upon its world....you may be able to realise the desease is descending from other corners of unsuspecting humanity...mainly the ones with brains to spare and little and/or no soul -who are relentlessly working on attaining the goal you made sound worth wishing for...

similar question goes to you too hurritt: which system are you proposing needs sustaining and how? in the meantime, i truly wish you moderated your urge to post what's essentially become a MAINSTREAM GUTTER PRESS FEAR PORN....thank you....sincerely l

[HURRITT ENYETO]

hurritt, i suggest you watched the video below...maybe then you will see the human population is not a desease upon its world....you may be able to realise the desease is descending from other corners of unsuspecting humanity...mainly the ones with brains to spare and little and/or no soul -who are relentlessly working on attaining the goal you made sound worth wishing for...

similar question goes to you too hurritt: which system are you proposing needs sustaining and how? in the meantime, i truly wish you moderated your urge to post what's essentially become a MAINSTREAM GUTTER PRESS FEAR PORN....thank you....sincerely l

Lightblue, I suggest you read my post again. NOWHERE did i say the Human race is a disease on the Earth.
What i said was the way the population spread was depicted in the video "reminded me of a disease" (as in how a disease spreads in a Petri dish) But now that you mention it would you not say the planet is at Diss-ease?

I also take offence at you implying that my thread (one of the very few i have made) is "mainstream, gutter press fear porn".
Have you not read my stance on depopulation LB? This planet IMHO could hold much grater numbers, the thing that needs to change is OUR LIFESTYLES, and our greedy, relentless CONSUMPTION, and wastefulness.

I would suggest these off the top of my head:

1) Either bring out the free energy devices in existence already, or make a concerted effort to develop new ones.

2)Everybody starts limiting their consumption in all areas of their lives. (this could be done without effecting our overall quality of life, just by buying and producing less 'useless crap'

3)Desalinate sea water, thereby turning useless land into productive land.

4)Make EVERYTHING more efficient (it is staggering just how inefficient and wasteful our production processes are.

5) Reverse the absurd practice that has invaded every area of production, the practice of making things with a limited lifespan (from Cars to washing machines, dishwashers etc) which is solely designed to increase revenue!

These are just a few that popped into my head while writing, I will add more when i have more time to contemplate it.

Hurritt

[Akhenaten]

LB when I used the word 'system' I was referring to SYSTEMS OF NATURE, not human-inventions. One example of such a system and word-usage is 'ecological system' meaning that all the pieces interconnect, mutually supporting one another into a cohesive whole. It was in this sense that I used the word SYSTEM. Also when I said 'cyclically over the ages' I was referring to the strong suggestions from the historic and 'mythological' record that periodically, at regularly occurring intervals, some 'natural catastrophe' strikes the earth, setting humanity back, and re-setting the natural order, scouring the decks clean ---- obliterating almost any trace of human footprints on the earth - regularly, like about every 12,000 years or so - I am talking the Precession of the Equinoxes here LB. I hope that clarifies what I had to say in my post #6. Actually I don't think there is any evidence that humans have 'over-used' their brains in recent history anyway. In fact it appears from various brain tests that have been done that only a fraction of our true brain potential is even used, in other words at some very profound level, most of us are 'asleep.' I will take this 'asleep' analogy further ----- we are in a collective NIGHTMARE and need to wake up! If you are suggesting that we are out of balance - that our brains have overridden our other mental functions and our 'spiritual' potential - I heartily agree. But there are very few of us, indeed that even use our brains. I think that our brains have been shut off.....all the better to manipulate us.

Perhaps we are seeing some language translation difficulties here?!

If so, I am sorry for any miscommunication I may have inadvertantly caused.

[pillaroflight]

John Lennon's Opinion about Over Population:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yRh5NNiFG0

[lightblue]

LB when I used the word 'system' I was referring to SYSTEMS OF NATURE, not human-inventions. One example of such a system and word-usage is 'ecological system' meaning that all the pieces interconnect, mutually supporting one another into a cohesive whole. It was in this sense that I used the word SYSTEM. Also when I said 'cyclically over the ages' I was referring to the strong suggestions from the historic and 'mythological' record that periodically, at regularly occurring intervals, some 'natural catastrophe' strikes the earth, setting humanity back, and re-setting the natural order, scouring the decks clean ---- obliterating almost any trace of human footprints on the earth - regularly, like about every 12,000 years or so - I am talking the Precession of the Equinoxes here LB. I hope that clarifies what I had to say in my post #6. Actually I don't think there is any evidence that humans have 'over-used' their brains in recent history anyway. In fact it appears from various brain tests that have been done that only a fraction of our true brain potential is even used, in other words at some very profound level, most of us are 'asleep.' I will take this 'asleep' analogy further ----- we are in a collective NIGHTMARE and need to wake up! If you are suggesting that we are out of balance - that our brains have overridden our other mental functions and our 'spiritual' potential - I heartily agree. But there are very few of us, indeed that even use our brains. I think that our brains have been shut off.....all the better to manipulate us.

Perhaps we are seeing some language translation difficulties here?!

If so, I am sorry for any miscommunication I may have inadvertantly caused.

there are no language translation difficulties...to the best of my knowledge, the word "system" hardly stands as short for natural systems as asserted by yourself..the word system however often stands as a synonym, or is used as short for economic/political system....

hurritt: Lightblue, I suggest you read my post again. NOWHERE did i say the Human race is a disease on the Earth.
What i said was the way the population spread was depicted in the video "reminded me of a disease" (as in how a disease spreads in a Petri dish) But now that you mention it would you not say the planet is at Diss-ease?I also take offence at you implying that my thread (one of the very few i have made) is "mainstream, gutter press fear porn".
Have you not read my stance on depopulation LB? This planet IMHO could hold much grater numbers, the thing that needs to change is OUR LIFESTYLES, and our greedy, relentless CONSUMPTION, and wastefulness.

no i wouldn't say the planet is dis-eased by the population growth..it is dis-eased because of the non-reletning profint and speculation based "economy" that spares no life in its path...

pity you get offended by a difference of opinion...

imo your choice of videos is most unfortunate and in keeping with gutter press porn fear i maintain...because and from the video, we can see just what you observed - something alarmingly spreading like a menace...the lighting dots represent humans increased presence on the planet - do they not? so what's menacing about that? the ever increasing humans procreating or the profit based system which no longer can withstand/control it? i say leave the people and change the system to suit human needs - BY DECENTRALISING, by letting people take control of their own affairs inside their own houses and not by professing some new creed from above - which is more or less what you say yourself in your points 1,2,3,4 and 5.... so why do you title your thread: "population nightmare"..what/who is the nightmare?

imo mismanaged potential is a manace not the potential..l

[sandy]

Maybe it is not so much we don't use our brains as it is we don't use our hearts>>>>>>>>>>>>>a brain without heart is cold and calculating for the most part thus the mileu of phycopaths running our world. The balance is not there and has been missing from the inception of man thus the devastation of Earth, IMHO. When humanity can own their emotions (nice and not so nice) and relate to them with the same trust they do their thoughts, finding a balance will be possible in creating a just society and a functional operation of the world.

Don't know to many who can speak reaily from the heart and the brain and assess the balance. Most people can express they feel good or bad with little definition of anything inbetween other than happy or angry.

All emotions break down to two>>>>>>>>>>>> FEAR or LOVE but the plethra of emotions inbetween ae the lessons so many do not want to recognize or learn and so the world goes on destroying itself from within!!

[Akhenaten]

LB here is what the American Heritage Dictionary says about the word SYSTEM

(sis-'tem) - Noun.

1. A group of interacting, interrelated or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

2. A functionally-related group of elements, especially:

a. The human body regarded as a functioning physiological unit.

b. An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or functions.

c. A group of physiologically or anatomically complimentary organs or parts - the nervous system or the skeletal system.

d. A group of interrelated mechanical parts of components.

e. A network of structures or channels, as for communications, travel or distribution.

f. A network of related computer software, hardware and data transmission devices.


3. A set of interrelated ideas or principles.

4. A social, economic or political organization.

5. A naturally occurring group of objects, or phenomenon, the solar system.

6. A set of objects grouped together for class or analysis.

7. A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction.

8. An organized and coordinated method, a procedure,

and lastly (my emphasis)

9. The prevailing social order, the establishment.

http://www.answers.com/topic/system

[lightblue]

.

akhenaten : 6. A set of objects grouped together for class or analysis.

nice one...the above has to be my pick of the list

my ultimate favourite though is the system as in stereo system (not in your dictionery as such).. l

Some guy:
Hey Jim, I just made a new system for getting my homework done so I can check all the high-pressure systems on my expensive new system, while listening to System!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=system


.

[Ross]

b. An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or functions.

That about sums up the human race in relation to our vital processes and functions in regards to a balanced sharing of this Earth...as in a FAILED system.

Ross

[lightblue]

That about sums up the human race in relation to our vital processes and functions in regards to a balanced sharing of this Earth...as in a FAILED system.

Ross

and as per usual: some are failing, some are thriving... l


.

[Heretic]

Can anyone share on this thread a group of people, tribe, or subculture that is actually living a lifestyle that is a benefit to nature from the sustainability perspective? Are there any examples out there in which humans are symbiotic with the earth? I don't mean meager attempts to lessen the human footprint of exploitation either, but a good example of "how it could/should be done".

[lightblue]

Can anyone share on this thread a group of people, tribe, or subculture that is actually living a lifestyle that is a benefit to nature from the sustainability perspective? Are there any examples out there in which humans are symbiotic with the earth? I don't mean meager attempts to lessen the human footprint of exploitation either, but a good example of "how it could/should be done".

sure, our local community in NW london http://ttkensaltokilburn.ning.com/ is doing its bit... things are looking up for next year's harvest.. l

http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/showt...orhood-Project

.

[dindrane]

Are there any examples out there in which humans are symbiotic with the earth?

"'The Indians were expert observers of the natural world, so they realized that old-growth forests sucked. Those forests may look impressive, but they're dead landscapes for game. So the Indians set fires, making sure the forests burned down periodically. They made sure there were only islands of old-growth forest in the midst of plains and meadows. The forests that the first Europeans saw were hardly primeval. They were cultivated, Ted. ...'" - State of Fear, Michael Crichton, 2004

and now for something completely different:

"Yellowstone Park, he explained, was the first wilderness to be set aside as a natural preserve anywhere in the world. The region around the Yellowstone River in Wyoming had long been recognized for its wondrous scenic beauty. Lewis and Clark sang its praises. Artists like Bierstadt and Moran painted it. And the new Northern Pacific Railroad wanted a scenic attraction to draw tourists west. So in 1872, in part because of railroad pressure, President Ulysses Grant set aside two million acres and created Yellowstone National Park.
There was only one problem, unacknowledged then and later. No one had any experience trying to preserve wilderness. There had never been any need to do it before. And it was assumed to be much easier than it proved to be.
When Theodore Roosevelt visited the park in 1903, he saw a landscape teeming with game. There were thousands of elf, buffalo, black bear, deer, mountain lions, grizzlies, coyotes, wolves, and bighorn sheep. By that time there were rules in place to keep things as they were. Soon after that, the Park Service was formed, a new bureaucracy whose sole job was to maintain the park in its original condition.
Yet within ten years, the teeming landscape that Roosevelt saw was gone forever. And the reason for this was the park managers - charged with keeping the park in pristine condition - had taken a series of steps that they thought were in the best interest of preserving the park and its animals. But they were wrong.
'Well,' Bradley said, 'our knowledge has increased with time...'
'No, it hasn't,' Kenner said. 'That's my point. It's a perpetual claim that we know more today, and it's not borne out by what actually happened.'
Which was this: the early park managers mistakenly believed that elk were about to become extinct. So they tried to increase the elk herds within the park by eliminating predators. To that end, they shot and poisoned all the wolves in the park. And they prohibited Indians from hunting in the park, though Yellowstone was a traditional hunting ground.
Protected, the elk herds exploded, and ate so much of certain trees and grasses that the ecology of the area began to change. The elk ate the trees that the beavers used to make dams, so the beavers vanished. That was when the managers discovered beavers were vital to the overall water management of the region.
When the beavers disappeared, the meadows dried up; the trout and otter vanished; soil erosion increased; and the park ecology changed even further.
By the 1920s it had become abundantly clear there were too many elk, so the rangers began to shoot them by the thousands. But the change in plant ecology seemed to be permanent; the old mix of trees and grasses did not return.
It also became increasingly clear that the Indian hunters of old had exerted a valuable ecological influence on the park lands by keeping down the numbers of elk, moose, and bison. This belated recognition came as part of a more general understanding that native Americans had strongly shaped the 'untouched wilderness' that the first white men saw - or thought they were seeing - when they first arrived in the New World. The 'untouched wilderness' was nothing of the sort. Human beings on the North American continent had exerted a huge influence on the environment for thousands of years - burning plains grasses, modifying forests, thinning specific animal populations, and hunting others to extinction.
In retrospect, the rule forbidding Indians from hunting was seen as a mistake. But it was just one of many mistakes that continued to be made in an unbroken stream by park managers. Grizzlies were protected, then killed off. Wolves were killed off, then brought back. Animal research involving field study and radio collars was halted, then resumed after certain species were declared endangered. A policy of fire prevention was instituted, with no understanding of the regenerative effects of fire. When the policy was finally reversed, thousands of acres burned so hotly that the ground was sterilized, and the forests did not grow back without reseeding. Rainbow trout were introduced in the 1970s, soon killing off the native cutthroat species.
And on and on.
And on.
'So what you have,' Kenner said, 'is a history of ignorant, incompetent, and disastrously intrusive intervention, followed by attempts to repair the intervention, followed by attempts to repair the damage caused by the repairs, as dramatic as any oil spill or toxic dump. Except in this case there is no evil corporation or fossil fuel economy to blame. This disaster was caused by environmentalists charged with protecting the wilderness, who made one dreadful mistake after another - and, along the way, proved how little they understood the environment they intended to protect.'" - State of Fear, Michael Crichton, 2004

"Deciding on the right thing to do in a situation is a bit like deciding on the right thing to wear to a party. It is easy to decide on what is wrong to wear to a party, such as deep-sea diving equipment or a pair of large pillows, but deciding what is right is much trickier. It might seem right to wear a navy blue suit, for instance, but when you arrive there could be several other people wearing the same thing, and you could end up being handcuffed due to a case of mistaken identity. It might seem right to wear your favourite pair of shoes, but there could be a sudden flood at the party, and your shoes would be ruined. And it might seem right to wear a suit of armor to the party, but there could be several other people wearing the same thing, and you could end up being caught in a flood due to a case of mistaken identity, and find yourself drifting out to sea wishing that you were wearing deep-sea diving equipment after all." -The Slippery Slope, Lemony Snicket, 2003

[Modwiz]

John Lennon's Opinion about Over Population:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yRh5NNiFG0

\

What a brilliant little clip here. It sums up the two basic camps in a fairly neat set piece. Yoko and John on one side and Dick on the other. What a difference when the heart works with the brain, eh?

[Ross]

Can anyone share on this thread a group of people, tribe, or subculture that is actually living a lifestyle that is a benefit to nature from the sustainability perspective? Are there any examples out there in which humans are symbiotic with the earth? I don't mean meager attempts to lessen the human footprint of exploitation either, but a good example of "how it could/should be done".

There are those that live within their enviroment, no manufacturing, importing ect, only use what they need to, to survive, several tribes in the Amazon come to mind and many more that have not been infiltrated by "others". Building materials, clothing, medicine and food/water. When their local area becomes less productive, they move on to another area. They do not seem to "over use" their abundent resources and seem to have a natural tendency to understand sustainability.

Ross

[Heretic]

no offense lightblue as your local community should be commended for their efforts to make a better world for us all, and I mean no disrespect but I specifically specified in my query:

I don't mean meager attempts to lessen the human footprint of exploitation either, but a good example of "how it could/should be done".

not just some good hearted folks "doing their bit" but the whole lifestyle - perhaps a definition of symbiosis would make my question more clear I do apologize

The definition of symbiosis is controversial among scientists. Some believe symbiosis should only refer to persistent mutualisms, while others believe it should apply to all types of persistent biological interactions (i.e. mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic).

Some symbiotic relationships are obligate, meaning that both symbionts entirely depend on each other for survival. For example, many lichens consist of fungal and photosynthetic symbionts that cannot live on their own. Others are facultative, meaning that they can, but do not have to live with the other organism.

The crux of the argument for depopulation centers on the ideology that humans, through resource exploitation (ie consumption) have become parasitic and this is unsustainable for the species and due to the notion that 2/3 of the worlds resources are now used up, a forced lifestyle change is in order....or a campaign of depopulation instead, so those who remain can continue the current lifestyle of what some consider gluttonous opulence.

I was trying to recall if there are any lifestyles out there that actually qualify for one of these as a possible solution and I could not think of one tribe or subculture that were not acting parasitic and were actually giving back to the earth more than they took to survive. No offense but I find the Transition Movement to be stepping stone TOWARDS symbiosis at best and not an example OF symbiosis.

Since I am pretty sure that the earth could live without humans on it, I was looking more for the mutualism per the definition above, in which a group of people are not only "leaving no consumption footprint" but increasing resources through conscious activity and living.

[dindrane]

giving back to the earth more than they took to survive.

truly no disrespect to you, Burke I'm possibly being petty. ...why must we give more than we take? wait... thinking... protection against eventuality....? *shrug*
what I really wanted to say is...

the earth could live without humans on it,

it's nice to be here, though