Nature

You've probably heard of movements to give rights to animals and bodies of water as ways of protecting them. When I first heard the idea, I found it far fetched. Then I remembered we extend rights to corporations, so why not other non-human and non-living things? I generally hear about giving rights to things we consider beautiful or sustaining, like animals and rivers. What about giving them to oil, coal, and other things that pollute when extracted and introduced into the environment? Presumably, if fossil fuels had rights, they would want to stay where they are, let alone not to be burned up. I wonder if anyone has worked on giving them rights. What if we could stop their extraction in one fell swoop, at…

Following up my post about Hundreds of trashed dead Christmas pagan trees, 2025 from late February, I saw what I figure will be the last one thrown out for the season at the end of March. That's how many trees we kill for a holiday tradition based in a different time and place, that we're still throwing them away, like octopuses in the garbage, months after the holiday. Different either than now, when landfills are full and old growth forests empty, or when Jesus was born, which was Bethlehem, a place with no sleigh bells ringing or reindeer. I'm sure Jesus is pleased, looking down from above if he is, that his birthday is being so honored, by stuffing the misplaced symbol of his birth…

Yesterday in My favorite solar panel I wrote about the problems with the solar panels we produce. Since they require nonrenewable resources to make and don't biodegrade, we lower earth's ability to sustain life in making them and disposing of them when they stop working. As far as I know, that problem happens for all ways we create energy besides eating plants and fungi and using wood. We think we need them for life. People often tell me they think we can't live without polluting, that even breathing and pooping pollute. Yet humans lived without lowering earth's ability to sustain life for 250,000 years. Other life forms have exhaled and pooped for billions of years without lowering earth's ability to sustain life. We don't need…

If something destroys life, liberty, and property, making it more efficient leads it to destroy less life, liberty, and property, not zero. Stopping doing it would stop destroying life, liberty, and property. We know life doesn't require pollution, despite our cultural beliefs. The quality of life of people who live sustainably doesn't appear lower than ours and in many cases appears higher, also despite our cultural beliefs. Let's look at a specific case. Say you have a machine that burns oil. Ways burning oil hurts people include the extracting the oil, which often destroys wildlife and thereby hurts people, displacing people from their lands to reach it, and polluted air from burning it. If you make it more efficient, you might think you pollute less.…