TaN: [A last minute inclusion] The headline “RH to help stop rise in abortion cases – DOH” (The Philippine STAR, March 7, 2014, URL: http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/03/07/1298062/rh-help-stop-rise-abortion-cases-doh) is deceptive and another example of how people keep on insisting that there is a short-cut to doing what is good and right. The article title gives the mis-impression that abortion cases will (somehow) magically disappear once the RH program goes into implementation. This is a very simplistic and presumptive approach and can be very dangerous. This is the same as saying that divorces will magically disappear by abolishing marriage – because 100% of divorces are due to marriages.
The reason why the RH program will “stop the rise in abortion cases” is because there will no longer be “unwanted” pregnancies – as if the contraceptives being pushed by the RH program is 100% foolproof. Granting that contraceptives can prevent unwanted pregnancies, it will also lead to rampant and wanton promiscuity and irresponsible parenthood. And, promiscuity brings with it the spread of STDs and other evils. But even if we grant that contraceptives are 100% effective, it still cannot guarantee 100% that there will be no unwanted pregnancies because it will all depend on: (1) whether contraceptives are used (at all) and (2) whether contraceptives are used correctly.
People – i.e., those who constantly and persistently insist on short-cuts – cannot seem to understand that only evil has short-cuts, that there are no such simplistic guarantees in life, and that only by changing the wrong and evil ways of man and not relying on mechanistic palliative solutions can there truly be any improvement in people’s lives. There is no true change unless it comes from within.
In conclusion, there is good reason for the nagging push for the RH program – because, aside from the assured increase in sales of contraceptives, there will be corresponding rise and demand for pharmaceuticals in anticipation of the increase in STDs and other maladies. It is big business for those who stand to benefit from contraceptives and the allied problems that is expected to arise.
TaN: When the land cracks due to dryness, it means the land is “dead” – i.e., there are nothing organic in it. A “new normal” in Big Ag (those that are engaged in “modern” farming) during times of dryness and drought is the cracking of the land. Even among so-called “traditional” farmers – who have become (witting or not) victims of modern agricultural practices by using chemical fertilizer, usually petroleum based and not those maintaining industrial- and commercial-scale plantations (owned and managed by huge corporations) – cracking of the earth are also a common sight during periods of extended dryness and drought.
The immediate cause of the cracking is that the soil has poor or no moisture retention. Any moisture quickly evaporates when there is nothing alive in the soil to prevent it from evaporating. The microorganisms not only keep the soil porous and absorbent by their constant movements and building and maintaining networks of tunnels but the organic matter (either decaying or resulting from digestion) holds back the water.
In the absence of microorganisms, the constant micro movements of the planet mantle (and the occasional but periodic trampling of animals) creates a settling effect on the soil resulting it being condensed and packed. This packing down of the soil collapses the tunnels and squeeze out the water which then evaporates. And, when dry enough, the soil cracks because there is nothing that “binds” the particles – like in mud and clay. [Water has a very strong binding quality. If you don’t believe, note the difference and difficulty in putting on a shirt or pants when your skin is wet as against when it is dry.]
But, what is the relationship between the use of (inorganic) chemical fertilizers and natural compost? Man-made chemical fertilizers are “dead” and toxic to soil microbes. They die off, leaving the soil “dead”.
In contrast, soil teeming with microorganisms are dry only on the surface but a couple of centimeters below the surface, there is a whole different microverse, where it is cool and dark and – importantly – DAMP. These kinds of soil rarely crack even when dry. If there are ever cracks, they are very small and almost unnoticeable.
TaN: Contemporary science is quack science – though most scientists are unintentional quacks. A recent video from BBC showed that scientists are “energetically” seeking undiscovered bacteria and viruses in the remotest and most unusual places – like the ocean floor and the deepest recesses of the “darkest” caves. I feel sorry for all those who exert effort to search out new bacteria and virus species in the hope that they will be the next new “weapons” in the increasingly difficult battle between man and pathogenic diseases – not knowing that the key to good health is not found in the nooks and crannies of the ends of the planet but in strengthening our immune system.
The scientists have unwittingly been indoctrinated or trained by conventional mechanistic science into thinking and believing that the only way to combat and hold disease at bay is to rely on or deploy external mechanisms. They have been (mis)lead to accept that our bodies are ill-equipped to fend off pathogenic diseases unless it gets assistance from other sources.
It is strange that “highly educated and intelligent” people can be so “easily swayed” into believing such preposterous and illogical myths such as our bodies being defenseless against sickness and diseases – Louis Pasteur’s Germ Theory, which is the primary basis for modern mainstream vaccine medicine.
It must be remembered that germs and microbes have been around “for the longest time” – way longer than man, supposedly the most recent or latest arrival. In fact, they were already around long before most other animals we know of. They have been “waiting” when our first ancestors arrived. Now, if they were as dangerous and lethal as Big Pharma claims – with their “modern” descendants what inundate our environment today – our ancestors would not even have survived Day One. However, our presence today is proof positive that our forebears survived – AND THEY DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF VACCINES!
So what is all this “crap” (or bovine ordure) about our needing vaccinations to protect ourselves against all the unseen evil critters when our ancestors had faced the same germs and microbes as we are facing today. If they survived – and brought forth descendants of which we are those descendant – how did they ever do it…without vaccines from Big Pharma? Logic dictates that since our ancestors survived without vaccines (with the same germs and microbes – because it is assumed that germs and microbes have no evolved significantly from their predecessors), there is no reason why we will fare any worse. The only reason that we will fall “victim” to the germs and microbes is that our immune system has been compromised.
And that is precisely what Antoine Beauchamp posited, when he refuted (with his Pleomorphism Theory) the claims of his archrival Louis Pasteur – the proponent of the Germ Theory that the entire modern vaccine industry is based on. What makes people sick is the strength of externalities (like viruses and bacteria) but the weakness of internalities (our immune system).
If our immune system is at full strength, no virus or bacterium or germ can make us sick. Our immune system is fully capable of fending off any external (or internal) attack. All it needs is we give it the proper support by providing it with the proper training (childhood diseases, like measles and mumps) and nutrients (ammunition and combat equipment).
Childhood vaccines rob our immune system of the “training” it sorely needs to prepare itself for future attacks. And childhood multi-dose vaccines devastate our immune system, leaving us practically defenseless. Have you ever noticed and wondered why childhood diseases do not happen all at once? This is to provide a graduated training for our immune system and to give it enough time to recuperate and recover between “bouts”. Multi-dose vaccines swamp and overwhelm the immune system, attacking it from all fronts and with a variety “enemies”. This never happened to our ancestors.
TaN: Sustainable development is responsible living and responsible living is Karl Marx’s socialism – true socialism and not the fraudulent and counterfeit socialism practiced by pseudo-socialist states and societies. True socialism observes and practices the Marxist principle of “From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.” Only when we take what we truly need (and not to be confused with wants or perceived wants) can negative impacts on the environment – and ultimately the planet – can be minimized. This is what nature’s creatures obey.
It cannot be denied that living entail some “damage” to the environment. One has to eat; one needs clothing; one needs shelter; one needs many necessities that must be sourced from the environment. All these needs equate to environmental “damage” because whether significant or miniscule, damage is damage and, in this case, damage refers to something in the environment will “suffer”.
To ensure life and even just existence, it is necessary to take what we need from the environment and any action taken is always a “damage” done to the environment – because we will have caused an imbalance and that imbalance is from removing something in the environment.
Therefore, to ensure that minimal negative impact will be done by our activities to stay alive, we must only take what we need because taking more than what we need we create greater imbalance or damage. Man is the only creature that takes more than what is needed from the environment. It is bad enough that we “over harvest” for our business but many go further and do it out of the sheer pleasure of it. Man is the only creature that kills or damages for his own delight. All nature practice social justice by taking only what it needs to survive – and this is what makes it sustainable.
TaN: I am all for intellectual property – until it becomes restrictive to the development and advancement of the common good, like setting or putting unreasonably high costs well beyond the affordability of the average consumer, then it becomes an obstruction at which I withdraw my support or agreement to it. I find it disturbing – to say the least – that the great majority accedes to the whims and dictates of the global and power elite. Why should the greater number be deprived of access or availability to something just because they do not have the financial resources to give in to the demands of the already-wealthy.
It is not unreasonable to set high prices for wants – but needs are an entirely different situation. To be deprived of access to wants is not as critical as deprivation of needs – i.e., “needs” are defined as those which are essential to the very survival of an individual in both the material (like food and shelter) and the immaterial sense (like dignity, rights, and security). Regardless of nationality and/or citizenship, there are fundamental needs that must not be left completely to the discretion of business – like in the argument that public utilities must have public (not just governmental) oversight by virtue of it being a public need.
In a public utility, the public must have a say in whatever policies that will or must be crafted and implemented. After all, it is the public who are the ones who will be most affected by whatever policies and decisions made by the utility management. Furthermore, the primary purpose of a public utility is to serve the public – i.e., the public is the “master”, so it only makes sense that the public is involved in the major decisions and policies that the public utility will enforce. Any decision or policy that will severely or detrimentally affect the (public) consumer must have the approval or consensus of the great majority (say, 80%) of the (legitimate) consumers – “legitimate” refers to those who are not “illegally” tapping into the power grid.
And even then, even for a want, pricing should not be unreasonably beyond the financial reach of the average individual – wherein not less than 70% of the public can afford it. To price any commodity beyond the reach of a large segment of the (potential) consumers effectively deprives (and violates) them of their right to choose – to choose whether to purchase the commodity or not. [Note: The right to choose is frequently misunderstood to be about making a choice between and among different alternatives when, in fact, it is about deciding whether or not to choose. To make a choice where the chooser cannot refuse or where the choice will never benefit is not a choice.]
In the case of intellectual property (IP), it is recognized and understood that the creator or developer of an IP has an inherent right to reap the benefits, it must nevertheless be understood that there should come a time where the IP will become public domain for the benefit of the common good – and the sooner the better.
Moreover, it must be understood that there should not be extensions to the duration of the benefit entitled to or obtained by the creator/developer. In addition, variants to be developed or forked prior to or upon termination of the beneficial period should not be tolerated and must be freely available to the public for use and/or further development. In other words, the IP holder cannot merely just enough alterations to qualify for an extension or a different exclusivity period. This will give the IP holder a virtual monopoly on the exclusivity because s/he will just keep tweaking the IP to qualify or until s/he gets “tired” of it.
Finally, the duration of exclusivity for an IP should be inversely proportional to its benefit to the general population – i.e., the greater its necessity to the public, the shorter the duration of the period of exclusivity. Under no circumstance shall a need qualify for exclusivity – i.e., only man-made IP can qualify for exclusivity and must not be mandated, like when it is required by law.