Marco Torres wrote this thought-provoking article published at Prevent Disease dot com. He states that, “There is one choice we could make right now that would transform our world to benefit all living things and the Earth itself.”
As we witness the collapse of the modern industrial age, Torres suggests that we choose, “Nature and each other above all else.”
So many of us have been deschooled on this concept that it may take decades for the scales to tip so that we all start respecting our world again.
By embracing Mother Nature, we adopt the foundation of all she has to offer. We understand that she is never mistaken and will always do the right thing for Earth’s inhabitants.
The author has personified Mother Nature as a powerful super-heroine who promotes all life on Earth equally, instead of choosing to see this planet which sustains us as a place to be conquered and divided. But, can mystical Mother Nature take care of herself? Torres continues:
Overpopulation: The Myth To End All Myths
That means things like overpopulation, lack of resources, lack of food, lack of water or lack of anything else coming from the Earth is not only a myth but is impossible reality. Man-made depopulation of the earth is a ridiculous concept since Mother Nature knows exactly what to do with the planet and its inhabitants to maintain balance at anytime.
Thomas Malthus argued that population growth, by the poor, inevitably outstrips food production and leads to a massive retaliation from Mother Nature (i.e., Malthusian Controls). His infamous “Malthusian Controls” which are taught to every first year sociology student, has become a cornerstone belief for many modern day globalists who advocate population control by any means necessary. This radical and dangerous idea promotes the unproven notion that the poor deserve to die because there are too many of them for the Earth to adequately support. Malthus believed that higher wages and welfare should be withheld from the great unwashed because he believed that these two factors would allow the poor to survive and exponentially breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem.
Overpopulation is a radical and dangerous myth promoted by elite and international societies. The unproven notion, as Malthus believed, that higher wages and welfare should be withheld from the great unwashed because he believed that these two factors would allow the poor to survive and exponentially breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem.
Overpopulation is a misnomer. A problem that exists only in dramatically erroneous theories that are not mathematically based. It is simply one of the most flawed concepts right up there with global warming. The theories are based on myths, not science or accurate statistical correlations or causation principles.
The theories can never be translated to any practical applications because they cannot exist in a close system designed to maintain homeostatic balance. This is what Mother Earth does for us. She balances our entire planet with all the resources required to maintain the status quo. Should that population exceed the necessary resources, the Earth will naturally purge as all macro-ecosystems do.
Those who believe in overpopulation have an enormous lack of understanding the natural tendencies of the Earth. This stems from myths, misinformation and a very ignorant approach to complex ecosystems of all sizes.
This is where the sense of entitlement comes into play. Are any of us entitled to decide that a certain segment of the Earth’s population should be culled? The population of human species on this planet has grown exponentially in the last century and the citizens of industrialized nations consume most of the Earth’s natural resources. Yet, many live in near poverty all over the world and a billion humans are starving. It’s hard not to see the inequality of this.
What about the natural resources, is there enough to go around? How should these resources be used and who benefits? Torres writes:
There have been many opponents to the branch of ethics dealing with embracing nature. Some such as British philosopher G. E. Moore who labeled the philosophy naturalistic fallacy. He argued it would be fallacious to explain that which is good reductively, in terms of natural properties such as “pleasant” or “desirable”. Others insist that those who appeal to nature claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong.
For example, many proponents of naturalistic fallacy will state that Earth has many toxic elements so all that is natural is not good. Aluminum is one of the Earth’s most natural abundant elements, yet putting it in your coffee may cause a host of health problems. While this is true, this is not how human beings naturally interact with aluminum. The argument stated is that aluminum is natural and bad for the human body so there goes the argument that all within nature is good right? Anything can be taken out of context and those advocates of naturalistic fallacy are experts at it.
The most common group of minerals in the Earth’s crust are aluminosilicates and native aluminum metal can only be found in the interiors of certain volcanoes. So there is a big difference between this type of interaction of metal with human populations and those that, for instance, are injected inside an infant through a vaccine.
Another example would be uranium which is naturally in very low concentrations of a few parts per million in soil and water. All natural uranium also has emitting alpha particles, but to achieve toxic levels found in concentrated man-made energy sources, man must intervene.
In their natural states, these elements do not cause problems. When corporations or governments find themselves taking these elements out of their natural states, we find ourselves polluting the environment and our bodies.
These examples demonstrate a dichotomy in the level of understanding of how nature interacts with humans and how humans interact with nature. Many misunderstandings relate to these very extreme views in an attempt to interpret what the majority of those who choose nature subscribe to. Although some groups who subscribe to natural principles have these views, the majority do not.
Marco Torres believes in, “The inherent goodness in all things,” and argues that in order to, “Advance human societies,” in accord with nature, we must begin to take responsibility at a personal level for our, “Collective consciousness.”
Knowledge must incorporate wisdom, he continues:
A better method of comparatively defining a belief system based on natural principles is this difference between knowledge and wisdom. It has little to do with choosing what is “right” or “good” or “pleasant”, and more about following the wisdom this planet has attained through billions of years of existence. We must agree to learn from the wisdom attained by Mother Earth and all our ancestors who have had solutions to many of the problems we face today.
Our existence on the planet is a mere speck compared to how long the Earth has been here. Plants and herbs are some of the oldest living things on the planet. How can a tobacco or a therapeutic cannabis plant be harmful to a human being? Unless a plant contains poisons, and is not meant to be ingested, it will never harm the human body. Only our instincts and the wisdom from our elders and ancestral populations can tell us that, not our governments.
The problem is, we have our schools, institutions and employers telling us to ignore these instincts and instead encourage us to follow what we have been programmed to learned, rather than what we know deep down inside is true.
We have such an overwhelming disconnection from nature, that we simply lack the comprehension that everything…absolutely everything is cyclical. Our environment, community, municipality, region, state, nation and world are only reflections of ourselves. If you want to understand what is happening to the Earth, look in the mirror.
Torres concludes be giving examples of ways in which to “choose nature” at a personal level:
– Choosing real food that grows from the earth, meaning eating dead processed foods is not within your consideration.
– Choosing health, not disease, meaning you reject all artificial substances or mechanisms that claim to heal the human body. You are your best Doctor and nobody knows your body better than you do. Food is your medicine and only you can heal yourself.
– Choosing the human body’s wisdom in all its perfection, meaning you don’t alter the body, inject it or harm it with anything and you extend that to all others.
– Choosing love, respect, kindness and support, meaning we help others even if they don’t help us because we know everything is cyclical and we will reap the benefits regardless of timing.
– Choosing life, not death, meaning we don’t kill anything unless we absolutely must to survive. That doesn’t mean we can’t eat plants or animals or anything else. If we need these things to survive, we do what is necessary within our instincts and the harmony that exists between ourselves and our environment.
– Choosing the Earth, meaning Mother Nature knows best. She will never lead us down the wrong path. She will always be there for us, providing us sustenance, shelter, and every single resource we will ever need to survive.
Have a little faith in Mother Nature. She knows what she’s doing and she will do what she needs to, regardless of human emotions, actions or events. She has a tiny bit of experience on this planet. Give her the respect she deserves.
Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.