I used to watch the whales from my grandmother’s upstairs window. Trying to focus her huge binoculars in my hands to see amongst the red-herrings of sea-weed, if there were any big moving bodies of energy about. We like them being there, even though we don’t watch them daily anymore. To kill them… it’s like flattening an island, sinking a ship full of people, tearing down a mountain, cutting out a rainforest, blowing up my neighbour’s home…
Humans cannot live without anything else to sustain them. Even lead boxes let things in and humans have pores that sieve the air and great big blow holes taking in and expiring. We interact with the earth and its creatures, we even interact with the energy of far distant singularities. Interconnection cannot be denied. I’ve tried thinking about a way a human could sustain itself without anything else and I came up with the idea of humans feeding off humans. It wasn’t a utopia and it still didn’t quite make sense.
So I reckon we’re not actually destroying the earth, we’re destroying our habitat. The earth will live on, it’s bigger than us. Humans will die off. And I like humans. It’s just that some of their systems tend to run backwards, or take way too much time to catch on, making human survival doubtful.
As I voted today (incidentally in a polling booth which is normally an army barracks) I thought, is there satisfaction is killing when it is not for hunger? Or are people doing as they are told because someone else says the only choice they have is this? And why indeed is it that only a couple of parties really get to have a say; when one is prepared to pulp Tasmania’s forests, and the other is stuck in the raciest and dirty industries of the 1950s? And neither would be prepared to protect the big visiting locals who travel the sea.
When people are forced off their land they own, with guns to their head so that companies can mine it… I just find Australia a little strange. But at least there are some organisations out there prepared to body-guard the whales.
http://www.seashepherd.org/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/
Humans cannot live without anything else to sustain them. Even lead boxes let things in and humans have pores that sieve the air and great big blow holes taking in and expiring. We interact with the earth and its creatures, we even interact with the energy of far distant singularities. Interconnection cannot be denied. I’ve tried thinking about a way a human could sustain itself without anything else and I came up with the idea of humans feeding off humans. It wasn’t a utopia and it still didn’t quite make sense.
So I reckon we’re not actually destroying the earth, we’re destroying our habitat. The earth will live on, it’s bigger than us. Humans will die off. And I like humans. It’s just that some of their systems tend to run backwards, or take way too much time to catch on, making human survival doubtful.
As I voted today (incidentally in a polling booth which is normally an army barracks) I thought, is there satisfaction is killing when it is not for hunger? Or are people doing as they are told because someone else says the only choice they have is this? And why indeed is it that only a couple of parties really get to have a say; when one is prepared to pulp Tasmania’s forests, and the other is stuck in the raciest and dirty industries of the 1950s? And neither would be prepared to protect the big visiting locals who travel the sea.
When people are forced off their land they own, with guns to their head so that companies can mine it… I just find Australia a little strange. But at least there are some organisations out there prepared to body-guard the whales.
http://www.seashepherd.org/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/