We all hold onto various inconsistent beliefs that are in incompatible with each other but, when viewed separately, they do not bring to mind a conflict at all.
One of these I have mentioned earlier is how we view separate media stories. We will quite easily spot the errors in a story we have experience with and then turn the page and read an article on something we do not hold a lot of information on, and believe it without considering that an expert would identify errors.
None of us can be experts in everything but with the constant flood of information pouring in and the feeling we should stay 'up to date', there is a lot of poor information we can hold. This can be used against us and is daily.
One interesting inconsistency I find is how often people discredit the words of banks, corporations and governments as spreaders of FUD directed at fulfilling their agendas but then support their views on various other aspects.
One that comes to mind for me is climate change. So many of the people I have talked to don't trust the banks and mega corporations to do what is right by us yet, when it comes to climate change, they are skeptics. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being skeptical however, based on what information?
From my perspective, the conversation about global warming was not the original conversation at all as originally, it was about pollution which, may lead to climate changes. As I see it, this conversation has been hijacked by those who incur loss from dealing with pollution and have turned it into a conversation where doubt can be brought to the table. The D in FUD.
They also add a fair amount of F saying things like if we clean up, the costs will be astronomical to industry and cost jobs, and no one likes job losses do they? Yet, how can both be true? Yes, jobs may be lost in some areas but the astronomical costs include many, many more jobs in new areas. When it comes to where jobs are created, it is in new industries, not old, as the old industries are already optimized and nearing capacity and saturation points.
But, that is not the only argument against global climate change as there is U uncertainty if it is a thing at all and for every 97 scientists who say, it is, there is three that can be found that says it isn't. And, they often have links to large, pollutive industries who finance their research papers. By chance of course.
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.source
What this means is that while people are arguing about the legitimacy of climate change, the pollution keeps pouring into the rivers, seas skies and land that we require to live with. Humans have a very narrow band of potential for life on this planet and the last few billion years have led to this point where for the last 2 million, we are okay but, that seems to be changing rapidly.
This paper's findings suggest that an arbitrary Chinese policy that greatly increases total suspended particulates (TSPs) air pollution is causing the 500 million residents of Northern China to lose more than 2.5 billion life years of life expectancy.source
Sure, that is in China but, the funny thing about this world is that everything is really connected. That 5 years decrease in life is going to increase and spread, as to are the health problems associated with all of the pollutants we put into the air. As well as the water.
Oysters that were exposed to microplastics readily ingested particles that were similar in size to the phytoplankton and, after two months of exposure, produced fewer and smaller oocytes (cells from which ova grow) and slower sperm, compared with those that weren't.source
Yeah, we aren't oysters but, the toxins and rubbish we pour into the ecosystem end up in our food sources also ad they are going to have a host of effects on how our bodies function. People talk about fluoride in the water and the effects it can have yet, many of the same don't seem to care too much about the massive amounts of chemicals getting pumped into the air.
The thing is that to deal with all of these things is going to take a massive shift in not only thinking, but also business activity which the mega corporations, the oil, car, cosmetic industries don't want to do. We don't want to do because to make the changes necessary, it is going to take all of us to sacrifice our current positions for an improved future. Who wants change and who will change are two different things.
The real issue is not whether climate change is happening or if it is man-made, it is, do we want to live in a world filled with our own waste, a world where the air we breath and water we drink is killing us. I don't think there is a scientist on earth, even the ones sponsored by the mega corps and banks, who will be able to shill polluted air as not a problem with a straight face.
Now, the next thing is this. If we want to live in a a world where people can actually flourish, it is going to take clean energy, not just for the health aspect but, for the decentralization of our reliance on the large energy providers today. The only way clean energy can realistically happen is if there is investment into it, investment into the uncertainty.
The banks aren't going to seriously threaten the businesses of their largest customers so are unlikely to really put a great deal of investment into cleantech solutions. It seems to be a similar thing with the pharmaceutical industry as the cure industry is not very well funded. There is plenty available for gaming startups though.
The world is an interesting place filled with inconsistencies that we have created and hold within us. We want one thing, act toward another, say this, do that. We don't trust these people as far as we can kick them but then, support their businesses and the FUD they spread. We hear drain the swamp and clap while the swamp is filled with toxicity.
From my view, a lot of this is engineered, conspiratorial, manipulative FUD to maintain power for those who have it and divide us without to make sure we cannot threaten their laws, actions and shackles.
My feeling is that at the end of the day, it would be in all of our benefit if we just said "To hell with it" and did all we could to do all we can. Yeah, the costs are high but the funny thing is, it is only money, and the money they control might not have too much value in the future.
Life always has value and health is wealth.
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
