What an insightful article about our frequent and annoying tendency to let other people affect us in our day to day lives, no wonder people who reach a certain level of awakening prefer not to engage in social situations. Most people seemed so concerned and attached to others opinions, looks, judgements, etc you but are not in the least bit bothered. And rather than trying to explain that sought of behavior is unnecessary and crude you just try to avoid each and every persons egoic ticks that seems to bring them comfort but according to Shenpa its really just extremely self destructive behavior. They just seem to want to drown in their habitual suffering while believing this sought of action brings them comfort and relief from whatever inconsequential discontent they are experiencing at that moment in time.
A few years ago, a team of scientists and engineers speculated in a documentary series what might become of Earth if humans suddenly disappeared. They predicted events beginning one day after the disappearance of humankind to one hundred years into the future, and explored the ways man-made structures might collapse, while nature replenished. The series demonstrated humankind’s enormous impact on the environment, and how without us, both animal and plant populations, on land and in water, would thrive.
The damage to biodiversity became clear a week ago when a summary of a UN-backed report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, revealed that 1 million animal and plant species are currently threatened with extinction from human activity.
The report, compiled by 145 authors from 50 countries, is the most comprehensive look at humanity’s imprint on nature ever to be completed, having tracked the relationship between economic development and the impact on the planet over the last 50 years.
It found that almost 75 per cent of the world’s freshwater was being devoted to agriculture and livestock; that approximately 60 billion tons of renewable (freshwater and biomass) and non-renewable resources (oil, gas and minerals) are extracted globally every year; that urban areas have more than doubled since 1992 at the expense of forests and wetlands; and that fertilizer has produced more than 400 dead zones in the oceans, equalling an area greater than the size of the United Kingdom.
“Nature makes human development possible but our relentless demand for the Earth’s resources is accelerating extinction rates and devastating the world’s ecosystems,” said Joyce Msuya
In response to a growing population—projected by the UN to reach 9.8 billion by 2050 —intensive agriculture, overfishing, energy production and the extraction of raw materials have “significantly altered” three quarters of Earth’s land and over half of the oceans, said the report.
However, the authors demonstrate that not all modes of human life lead to such pervasive environmental degradation. A quarter of global land area, occupied by indigenous peoples, is, while under increasing pressure, declining “less rapidly” than in other lands. In fact, the authors state that regions and countries would stand to benefit from the knowledge of indigenous people and their understanding of large ecosystems.
“Governance, including customary institutions and management systems … involving indigenous peoples and local communities, can be an effective way to safeguard nature and its contributions to people,” the report says.
Yet, areas of the world expected to experience the most adverse effects from climate and biodiversity change are places predominantly inhabited by indigenous communities, as cities expand and require more roads, dams and oil and mineral extraction.
“A critical message from the report is that nature fares better when the people most connected to that nature—those living within it—are supported as the primary stewards,” said Doreen Robinson, wildlife expert at UN Environment. “When people benefit from biodiversity they protect it.”
It is clear from the report that at the current rate of development, negative impacts to nature are predicted to continue to 2050 and beyond, with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets for 2020 expected to be missed. That is why the report’s authors highlight the need for a “system-wide reorganization,” across technological, economic and social realms so that nature can be restored and conserved.
Or as Audrey Azoulay, Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) , said: “We must live on Earth differently.”
Happiness is a hound dog in the sun. We aren’t on Earth to be happy, but to experience incredible things.
– Hannah Schneider
There is life after death. Every now and then a radical new idea arrives to shake the very foundation of our understanding of life and the universe. Let this blow your mind.
— Read on ideapod.com/new-theory-based-quantum-physics-says-theres-life-death/
I am proud to be a newly minted American in Pantsuit Nation. Since the election I’ve not been sure how much the immigration system will change and it’s been an unstable time for anyone wanting to be a part of this great country. I am ready to serve this country for the opportunity it has granted me. Also fight for the democracy most people take for granted because they are unaware what people have to endure in countries without individual freedom.
I supported HRC during the election and was so disappointed at the outcome. I realised people will not understand the value of smart leadership until they experience the worst. After my 18 year journey to become a citizen of this great Nation I’ve realise how valuable our personal freedoms are and have felt this country gave me the opportunity to use my abilities to strive to be the best version of myself which I know back in Sri Lanka where I come from it wouldn’t be possible. Unfortunately my father passed away before he could witness me become an American Citizen and he told me before he died just days before the election that America will only elect a decent human being as their President referring to HRC. He couldn’t imagine an America with such reprehensible leaders. Wishing America a bright future where we elect leaders without being decieved by any other countries envious of our freedoms.
The October Revolution, organized by Vladimir Lenin exactly a century ago, is still relevant today in ways that would have seemed unimaginable when Soviet Communism collapsed.
Marxist-Leninism (albeit in the unique capitalist-Maoist form) still propels China, the world’s surging hyperpower, even as that same ideology ruins Cuba and Venezuela. Meanwhile, North Korea, a dystopian Leninist monarchy with nuclear weapons, terrifies the world. Even more surprisingly, Communism is experiencing a resurrection in democratic Britain: Jeremy Corbyn, that quasi-Leninist comfortingly disguised as cuddly grey-beard, is the most extreme politician ever to lead one of Britain’s two main parties, and he is inching toward power.
But Lenin’s tactics, too, are resurgent. He was a sophisticated genius of merciless zero-sum gain, expressed by his phrase “Kto kovo?” — literally, “Who, whom?” asking the question who controls whom and, more important, who kills whom. President Trump is some ways the personification of a new Bolshevism of the right where the ends justify the means and acceptable tactics include lies and smears, and the exploitation of what Lenin called useful idiots. It’s no coincidence that President Trump’s chief campaign strategist, Steve Bannon, once boasted “I am a Leninist.”
One hundred years later, as its events continue to reverberate and inspire, October 1917 looms epic, mythic, mesmerizing. Its effects were so enormous that it seems impossible that it might not have happened the way it did.
And yet it nearly didn’t.
There was nothing inevitable about the Bolshevik revolution. By 1917, the Romanov monarchy was decaying quickly, but its emperors may have saved themselves had they not missed repeated chances to reform. The other absolute monarchies of Europe — the Ottomans, the Habsburgs — fell because they were defeated in World War I. Would the Romanovs have fallen, too, if they had survived just one more year to share in the victory of November 1918?
October might have heralded a short-lived interim, like so many other failed revolutions of that era. Any coordinated attack by White armies, the other side in the Russian civil war, or any intervention by Western forces would have swept the Bolsheviks away. It all depended on Lenin. He was very nearly overthrown in a coup by rebellious coalition partners but he made his own luck, though, by a combination of ideological passion, ruthless pragmatism, unchecked bloodletting and the will to establish a dictatorship. And sometimes, he just got plain lucky: On Aug. 30, 1918, he was shot while addressing a crowd of workers at a factory in Moscow. He survived by inches.
Had any of these events foiled Lenin, our own times would be radically different. Without Lenin there would have been no Hitler. Hitler owed much of his rise to the support of conservative elites who feared a Bolshevik revolution on German soil and who believed that he alone could defeat Marxism. And the rest of his radical program was likewise justified by the threat of Leninist revolution. His anti-Semitism, his anti-Slavic plan for Lebensraum and above all the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 were supported by the elites and the people because of the fear of what the Nazis called “Judeo-Bolshevism.”
Without the Russian Revolution of 1917, Hitler would likely have ended up painting postcards in one of the same flophouses where he started. No Lenin, no Hitler — and the 20th century becomes unimaginable. Indeed, the very geography of our imagination becomes unimaginable.
The East would look as different as the West. Mao, who received huge amounts of Soviet aid in the 1940s, would not have conquered China, which might still be ruled by the family of Chiang Kai-shek. The inspirations that illuminated the mountains of Cuba and the jungles of Vietnam would never have been. Kim Jong-un, pantomimic pastiche of Stalin, would not exist. There would have been no Cold War. The tournaments of power would likely have been just as vicious — just differently vicious.
The Russian Revolution mobilized a popular passion across the world based on Marxism-Leninism, fueled by messianic zeal. It was, perhaps, after the three Abrahamic religions, the greatest millenarian rapture of human history.
That virtuous idealism justified any monstrosity. The Bolsheviks admired the cleansing purges of Robespierre’s Reign of Terror: “A revolution without firing squads is meaningless,” Lenin said. The Bolsheviks created the first professional revolutionaries, the first total police state, the first modern mass-mobilization on behalf of class war against counterrevolution. Bolshevism was a mind-set, an idiosyncratic culture with an intolerant paranoid wordview obsessed with abstruse Marxist ideology. Their zeal justified the mass killings of all enemies, real and potential, not just by Lenin or Stalin but also Mao, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia. It also gave birth to slave labor camps, economic catastrophe and untold psychological damage. (These events are now so long ago that the horrors have been blurred and history forgotten; a glamorous glow of power and idealism lingers to intoxicate young voters disenchanted with the bland dithering of liberal capitalism.)
And then there is Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union. President Vladimir Putin’s power is enforced by his fellow former K.G.B. officers, the heirs of Lenin and Stalin’s secret police. Mr. Putin and his regime have adopted the Leninist tactics of “konspiratsia” and “dezinformatsiya,” which have turned out to be ideally suited to today’s technologies. Americans may have invented the internet, but they saw it (decadently) as a means of making money or (naïvely) as a magical click to freedom. The Russians, bred on Leninist cynicism, harnessed it to undermine American democracy.
Mr. Putin mourned the fall of Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century, yet he regards Lenin as an agent of chaos between two epochs of national grandeur — the Romanovs before Nicholas II (Peter the Great and Alexander III are favorites) and Soviet Union’s superpower glory under Stalin.
Mr. Putin presents himself as a czar — and like any czar, he fears revolution above all else. That is why it is victory against Germany in 1945, not the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 that is the founding myth of Putinist Russia. Hence the irony that while the West has been discussing the revolution at length, Russia is largely pretending it never happened. Lenin’s marble mausoleum in Red Square must echo with his laughter because that’s just the sort of serpentine political calculation he would have appreciated.