Politics and the environment
Código CP01-E0004-I
VIEW:409 DATA:2020-03-20
In the world there is a factor of extreme hypocrisy. While talking about taking care of the environment, we seek gains and product generation. The issue is linked to the pursuit of power, not the concept of caring for the environment.
Heat is currently killing people, a report says about 1,500 people die in France from the heat. But in 2003 there were 15 thousand deaths. This is happening. The world is warming up! Some don't want to think about it, others try to say that nobody knows why. The question is, what should we do?
Those who are making profits want to do nothing to hurt their profits. It does not matter if they may be causing the problem. And if anyone says they are, then these companies look to various researchers and pay them to say that nothing can be said about the cause of global warming, and that more research is needed.
So imagine this: Suppose in ten years' time it is proved beyond a doubt that the cause of global warming was man's destructive action. But at the same time it turns out that now nothing else can be done, and that billions of people will die. What would you think would have been logical?
Care to conserve nature seeking preservation? Since strong research determines that the greenhouse effect is a human cause? Or wait for when there is no return but waiting for death?
A few years ago there was no extremely conclusive research that said smoking caused cancer. But strong evidence has caused several people to quit smoking. But others justified that there was no hard evidence that cigarettes caused cancer. Those who stopped did not enter the percentage of people who die of cancer, while the others entered the group that has a high percentage of cancer deaths.
Which of the two groups do you think was smarter? What has stopped smoking or what has not stopped smoking?
The same thing happens with the environment. But most want to get to the point of no return, and may even have already been crossed.
Closing your eyes to what is happening does not change reality. Nature is warning, and the vast majority do not wish to see.
And when there's no turning back, like someone who gets a deadly lung cancer from smoking, pl-what are you going to do?
In fact, the big question is: If the few who think more about wholeness than their own instincts, could they change the path people are following?
Thinking purely logically, the answer is a big no.
Heat is currently killing people, a report says about 1,500 people die in France from the heat. But in 2003 there were 15 thousand deaths. This is happening. The world is warming up! Some don't want to think about it, others try to say that nobody knows why. The question is, what should we do?
Those who are making profits want to do nothing to hurt their profits. It does not matter if they may be causing the problem. And if anyone says they are, then these companies look to various researchers and pay them to say that nothing can be said about the cause of global warming, and that more research is needed.
So imagine this: Suppose in ten years' time it is proved beyond a doubt that the cause of global warming was man's destructive action. But at the same time it turns out that now nothing else can be done, and that billions of people will die. What would you think would have been logical?
Care to conserve nature seeking preservation? Since strong research determines that the greenhouse effect is a human cause? Or wait for when there is no return but waiting for death?
A few years ago there was no extremely conclusive research that said smoking caused cancer. But strong evidence has caused several people to quit smoking. But others justified that there was no hard evidence that cigarettes caused cancer. Those who stopped did not enter the percentage of people who die of cancer, while the others entered the group that has a high percentage of cancer deaths.
Which of the two groups do you think was smarter? What has stopped smoking or what has not stopped smoking?
The same thing happens with the environment. But most want to get to the point of no return, and may even have already been crossed.
Closing your eyes to what is happening does not change reality. Nature is warning, and the vast majority do not wish to see.
And when there's no turning back, like someone who gets a deadly lung cancer from smoking, pl-what are you going to do?
In fact, the big question is: If the few who think more about wholeness than their own instincts, could they change the path people are following?
Thinking purely logically, the answer is a big no.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags
greenhouse effect, environment, deforestation, preservation, global warming, global catastrophe