It should pay to live a good lifestyle

This blog post is a generalisation. A correct generalisation would mean that in most cases it applies. That it’s generally correct at the time of writing, but not in all cases (or contexts)

I haven’t written a blog post in a while, whilst I’ve had plenty of thoughts that are somewhat within the context of climate change for example, or more broadly the idea that humans should be (urgently) thinking about how their actions are having a negative effect on the environment__what words, what ideas, what scientific evidence, can turn people’s behaviours, people’s lifestyles, people’s mindsets, or cultures in general, into more positive actions that will help to mitigate ecological degradation? Personally, I continue to do my best to reduce how much plastic waste I use for example. But, and it’s an extremely big but, many people haven’t given the environment much thought. Many people buy products in plastic packaging then discard the plastic without thinking much, if at all, about how that plastic was manufactured and what will happen to the plastic they throw in the bin. For many, the fact that a plastic bottle for example, has “recycled” and or “recycle” written on it, is enough information to convince them that that plastic is being recycled. However, over time, most plastic ends up polluting the environment, either by being discarded into the environment, or being land-filled or incinerated. Most people are not that interested in hearing about this, it’s hardly exciting news. Besides, it’s convenient for them to buy water in plastic bottles, for one example.

Generally, people do not like their lifestyles to be challenged, and generally, people’s lifestyles are causing too much pollution to enter the environment and causing too much destruction of natural habitats. Typically, this ecological degradation happens ‘out of sight’ therefore ‘out of mind’ for most people. In that, whilst many more people are now aware that humanity is polluting the environment, it’s typically perceived as someone else’s problem to deal with (“what am I supposed to do about it!?”) For example, the aspects of the “killing machine” that is part of the animal agricultural industry happens out of sight for most consumers of meat. When there is money to be made, there are many humans that are all too ready to make money in whatever way they can, regardless of any costs to the environment. Exploiting non-human and human animals is “good for business” (e.g., cheap products) The reason for this moral negligence is precisely because humans are animals, with animal like temperaments. Greed for example, wanting more then you need, is often why certain rich people promote unsustainable business as usual activities. Humans have developed many beliefs that mistakenly place humans as special or “super” natural. But, humans are not “super” natural. And unfortunately, the way the economy is set-up at the moment, the system often rewards those people that are the most exploitative (if the law permits that exploitation) Rich people often shape the laws of the land to suit their agenda’s. It’s certainly a fact that the more people own private jets for example, the less chance we have of mitigating ecological degradation including climate change. Private jets for the “leaders” or the very rich, and public transport for the masses, isn’t a honest democracy (more like a plutocracy) Obviously, only rich “leaders” whom believe they have more right to use more resources than the “average” person__promote such an unequal state of affairs.

The majority of people, if they were informed and cared for the future of the planet, or more socially the future of their children and children’s children, etc, would vote to have a fit for purpose public transport system for all. We need to have less, not more cars and jets. The only way to make that happen is to invest in mass public transportation. To be clear, I’m thinking of modern electric public transport. Of regular electric buses and trains. Right now, I could catch a bus, to catch a train, to catch another train, etc, and be in the South of France in a matter of several hours (not days) I live in the North of England. That route needs to be all electric and powered by renewables (and cheaper than air travel) Same if you live in the USA, etc. Continually expanding air travel, is simply heading in the wrong direction (if sustainable travel is a cultures aim) Of course, the air-line industry won’t ever say that. Just as the meat industry will never advertise their cruel and highly polluting, therefore unsustainable practices. The truth isn’t "good” for unsustainable business models. Health isn’t “good for business” if your wanting to sell tobacco. Profit before planet isn’t sustainable. There are solutions, but those solutions require leaders that put the environment before their own personal profits. I can’t see that happening without regulation. And I can’t see how the leaders that have been putting profit before the environment will choose to regulate themselves. To me, that means that only the dire effects, only the dire consequences of ecological degradation, will be enough to convince populations of humans that a radical change is needed. For example, working the ‘9-5’ doing a job that causes pollution, and then going on a Jet holiday a few times a year, just isn’t a good lifestyle. Good as in good for the environment.

However, talk is cheap when many producers (AKA manufacturers) and consumers will not suddenly have a change of mind and think, to paraphrase “Oh heck! look how much cruelty and environmental destruction farming animals (on an industrial scale) has and is causing, I need to change my business and diet”. The same is true, I believe, regarding the amount of plastics and fossil fuel emissions (AKA greenhouse gases) that are entering the environment. Basically, when behaviours are based on routines, ingrained habits and ‘group think’ ways to think, and when there is money to be made by neglecting the environment and or animal rights, it’s going to end badly. Generally, too many humans exploit the environment for profit and that’s often monetarily rewarded ( AKA as being rich). I’m referring to unsustainable environmental activities, typically for profit (AKA money) That neglect is so severe, that some leadership positions will exploit the environment simply because they have no idea what “the environment” is. Climate change is one big human caused problem amongst a host of other human caused big problems such as war. No non-human agent is forcing human leaders to promote wars. If a person has never seriously asked themselves “why do humans fight one another?”, that person is living in some form of psychological “box” in which they do not question societies social norms and values (AKA conformity) Generally, humans fighting one another is pointless (destructive) In that, whatever some people say or believe that some war achieves, the fact is that cooperation always achieves far better outcomes. That does not mean that war is always avoidable, in that one or both “sides” maybe so driven by ideology (e.g., religion) or “hate” that cooperation isn’t possible, however, any leaders primary aim should be to first try and de-escalate tensions using cooperation. Cooperation often comes in the form of trade agreements.

How often do you change your mind? I mean, really change your political view, for example? How often do business people change their minds if their business is ecologically harmful? How often do meat eaters accept that their diet causes animal cruelty and ecological degradation? How can a person go from apathy about animal cruelty to caring about the animals they used to eat? Try and tell a diesel vehicle driver that their vehicle is polluting the air, what you will typically hear is a mind that isn’t changing (a broken record) However, if you’re to maintain a healthy mind, you should learn to embrace change. Learning, by definition, is a type of change. Learning to eat a better diet for the planet also aligns with learning to eat a healthier diet for yourself (regardless of what the misinformed meat eaters or meat “sellers” say) Basically, certain plants have nutrients that promote a longer life (it’s up to you to find out which plants they’re) A varied plant based diet is the best diet for the environment and for your own health (generally) Of course, the “culture” needs to be set-up in such way to make eating a plant based diet accessible for all. A subsidised meat and dairy industry is bad for the planet and people’s health (And of course for so called “livestock”) Change happens over time, in time, the meat industry or a meat based diet, can be replaced with plants (for the good of all, eventually)

On it’s broadest scale, “the environment” is the planet Earth’s biosphere (AKA ecosystem) that we live within (that we are part of) Humans are not ‘required’ for the ecosystem to function. If all humans disappeared today, the sun would rise tomorrow and nature wouldn’t give us a second thought. This shouldn’t be news to any informed person. For example, if you or I “passed away” (AKA died) peacefully in our sleep tonight, the “world” would carry on without us tomorrow. The fact is that humans are animals. We look like animals (especially naked). We have all the behavioural characteristics of animals, etc. The fact that many humans don’t perceive themselves as animals just goes to show how much some humans, or more broadly human cultures, choose to delude themselves in order to deal with life. However, I believe that’s because people haven’t given life, and death, much thought. For example, as a way to cope with loss (e.g., bereavement), cultural beliefs have developed that convinced people that the loss is only temporary (e.g., an afterlife) It’s understandable why humans, why people, why you and I, feel the need to have a purpose in life. And for humans to want to believe that there is a “good” reason for death. Does that purpose have to include something that gives death a point from a human social perspective? (not only an ecological perspective) That gives the loss of life a point on a social level? The loss of a loved one for example. The loss of love, AKA bereavement, is somewhat of a second hand emotion. In that, what many, including myself, have experienced as love is an insecure attachment. Is it possible to love without being “crushed” if that love is lost (an insecure attachment) It has been said that some parents will do anything for their children. And yet, that care does seem conditional when it’s in the context of adults taking care of the environment for their children’s sake. How can so many adults deeply care for children, and yet, have apathy for the environment on which their children’s future depends upon? I believe that’s because of the system. The system for example, makes us feel that we can’t stop the “powerful” fossil fuel industry. The system means that even when we vote for a political party that says it will invest in renewables, it also invests in more extraction of fossil fuels. The system are governments with some leaders that give the impression that taking care of the environment is a “joke” (to them) The system subsidisers the meat industry. An industry that sells it’s products using misleading narratives. The system at work for example, maybe why you throw all your rubbish into one bin. If the system, at work for example, provided separate bins for paper, plastic and metals, perhaps then you’d use them. If the system provided affordable and convenient electric public transport, perhaps you’d use it? If “the system” was leaders that informed you of the science of climate change, and that “carbon capture” was a hoax, would you vote differently? If the system rewarded you to live environmentally sustainably, I bet you would!