"The problem is public ownership of rainforests, and the unwillingness of those who claim the higher value of rainforest conservation. to put their money where their mouth is and *buy* them*."

Which is due to... you guessed, greed!

Pelican,

Whether or not the Earth will survive (a bit longer) is not anywhere as important compared with whether or not greed and avarice can be conquered.

A "religion" which places human wellbeing and survival in the fore is not a true religion. Such matters should indeed be left within the practicalities of secular and scientific endeavor, by those who take interest in that. Religion should focus on union with God, which happens to require among other things, the removal of obstacles such as greed and avarice. Caring for the environment may then be used at times as a religious technique to help overcome those obstacles, but not as a goal in itself.

Shocking that this is official UN policy.
But not that surprising.

This trend of establishing a globally enforced "correct perception/behaviour" has been going on for a while now.

It won't be too long before we see the Green-Progressive equivalent of witch-hunts and inquisitions.
After all, the "salvation" of the whole planet's at stake!

Yuyutsu
"Whether or not the Earth will survive (a bit longer) is not anywhere as important compared with whether or not greed and avarice can be conquered."

Well if the earth (or humankind) does not survive, whether or not there is greed or avarice will be a moot point (after the unlikely event). Sometimes the two are inextricably linked. Environmental plundering is often due to greed and avarice or at best ignorance and failure to identify risks. Many a third world country with little regulation or governance has experienced the worst of environmental disasters due to unrestricted mining licences.

From the little I can understand from the article, the author appears to be suggesting the UN is proposing the world adopt a universal religion of gaia or environmentalism, which is disingenuously presented as separate from an Indigenous context. I doubt that such a proposal in the way the author has presented it would be entertained seriously by the majority of UN nations let alone any other body or group of people.

Clearly there has to be a careful balance between human activity and protection of the environment on which we so rely. Nothing sinister in that no matter how special interests might spin it.

But the article was a bit gobbledygook as I saw it so perhaps there was some misinterpretation. It just seemed a bit like scaremongering or mischief making.

Hi all, wouldn't it be great if we had a spare planet up our sleeves. I mean, we could just go for it, and enjoy this short lived all we can eat excitement that our tiny brains thinks will go on for ever. 7 billion.A...Who would of ever thought. So....apparently with masterfulness as humans, we've come to the conclusion That time itself will run out for us, at our currant rate.....and No-one will deny the obvious, when confronting the human condition. Displaying our ignorance to the planet that gives us all life, well...;0 I think when a planet is being damaged to this extent, the youth will have just a waste land for their prosperity and effort. Environmentalists are, and have never called upon humanist/humans or earth-care people, like we need them to day. Religion waits for a God to come and fix or wipe up for mans mistakes, but this caveman non reality.....will just be a death sentence for us all. Its true, religion was our guides, and for some, it still is, but the facts are what they are, and no amount of praying will fix the damage. I could play with big words, but no-one listens:)

What happens with our system at 8 billion?

What happens with our system at 9 billion?

and so on....Cant you see! We will eat this planet alive! Iam I the only one that can see it?

I put a model here back in 2008....and it when like this....

If you put two rats in a box, they will breed with the room that their environment dictates. However, if you put ten rats in the same box, they will fight and kill for whats left, and thats what mankind is facing today.

Its your world, I just live on it.

Good luck.

LEA

I don't think some people on this thread understand the significance of the Earth Mother. In Australia, this is a very old tradition going back to the late seventies. In a brilliant article by Tony Swain, 'The Earth Mother Conspiracy', Journal of Religion (I think), about 1991, the author painstakingly traces all references to an Earth Mother here in Australia, all the anthropological and religious research going back well into the nineteenth century, and finds that the first reference to Her is in 1977, by an Aboriginal Christian leader.

One can easily see why such a myth would be adopted, if we think in simple, oppositional terms:

* Christians' male god - our Goddess

* God in the sky - Goddess in the earth

* God representing 'civilisation', modernity, technology, power, whites - goddess representing 'tradition', ancientness, 40,000 years of absolutely unchanging culture, living with nature, caring for country, reconciliation with powerlessness

* male power - female power (really ?! In Aboriginal communities ?!)

* Science and knowledge - ritual and belief

* Them - Us

* Day - night

The ancient tradition of Earth Mother worship goes back even further in the US - perhaps to almost 1970.

So please give this tradition the respect and awe that it deserves.

:)

Joe

Joe! can I borrow a club off you:) I see some primitive thoughts coming:)

LEAP