Author Topic: Deepwater Horizon  (Read 2148 times)

erik

  • Guest
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #195 on: May 04, 2013, 05:55:44 PM »
That's what our species does to the world. I wonder how long our planet will consider it worthwhile to keep the situation as is. It is hard to believe that planet's mind is going to look stoically at such reckless behaviour for much longer.

Offline Muffin

  • Pir
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Keep the beast in my nature under ceaseless attack
    • Sensorium Dei
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #196 on: May 04, 2013, 09:08:29 PM »
Take the analogy of us being like a cancer to the planet. Some people who get sick of cancer manage to fight back and eradicate it (with help), but most succumb to it and die.
Maybe there's nothing the planet can do or it's not strong enough.
"The result of the manifestation is in exact proportion to the force of striving received from the shock." -Gurdjieff, Belzebub's Tales to his grandson

www.sensoriumdei.org

Offline Muffin

  • Pir
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Keep the beast in my nature under ceaseless attack
    • Sensorium Dei
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #197 on: May 05, 2013, 10:23:48 AM »
Earth is responding to human dream by creating disasters at the spots where human concentration is highest and collective dreams most dark, hopeless and pessimistic.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and ask, are disasters really more common where human concentration is highest? Maybe we are more aware of those that happen close to crowded places because it affects more people therefore it's a bigger news. You wouldn't hear about an earthquake destroying a 2000 people village somewhere in Mongolia. Just a few weeks ago there was a magnitude 8 earthquake in Iran, in a desert region. The death toll was barely inexistent - I don't remember it because it was only a small side news on the day it happened without any follow-up. The media didn't care to sensationalize it.

We do not manifest these disasters, we might cause them to increase in number and intensity. We also have many more settlements and many are "large" - the laws of statistics say that disasters affecting humans will be more (and better covered). There's no need for a vague, spiritual law "of manifestation" to explain it. 

The planet will be fine. We have evidence of global catastrophic events in the Earth's past that destroyed almost everything, yet here we are with millions of species of lifeforms. Maybe we'll lead all of them to extinction, making us the next catastrophic event, but the planet will regenerate. Once human activity ceases, the forests we burnt and cut will regenerate, land that we destroyed with intensive agriculture will be reclaimed by weed and general plant and animal life. Save for a global nuclear contamination, life will most definitely flourish, and they even found bacteria flourish in highly radioactive environments.

Maybe we should stop explaining everything through our egotistic, self-important and self-righteous views we have as a species.
"The result of the manifestation is in exact proportion to the force of striving received from the shock." -Gurdjieff, Belzebub's Tales to his grandson

www.sensoriumdei.org

erik

  • Guest
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #198 on: May 05, 2013, 03:36:32 PM »
Good point. This article claims that natural disasters have not become more common since 1980s and they do not take more lives. Their economic toll keeps soaring, though, which questions the viability of our economic structures.

Someone pursuing the train of thought of Ruiz would argue that it only proves how benevolent being our Earth is despite the depressing thoughts and deeds (nightmare dream) of humanity. It does not seem to want to wipe out humans, it just sabotages economy which, in turn, seems to be the softest spot for many individuals (e.g. suicides in the US topic). In other words, it administers a bit of therapy to its malfunctioning organ.

Whether it is so or not - everyone has to see nature and qualities of human-Earth connection for themselves - you are absolutely right to say that Earth will survive. It has survived previous civilisations and it will survive this one as well. Humanity is not important enough to talk about the end of the 'world'. Humanity's dream of the world influences most of all the fate of humanity.

The challenge of survival for mankind is, however, not to switch into a fluffy New Age view of the world (it does not change the basic social structures created by mankind) or wallow in wealth and say that if acquired 'spiritually', there are no resource constraints (it is merely putting a new label on a greed-based economy). It is about finding truth (to the extent we can penetrate unknown) about ourselves and our existence here, and applying it in what we do.

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18283
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #199 on: May 06, 2013, 01:10:34 AM »
Earth is responding to human dream by creating disasters at the spots where human concentration is highest and collective dreams most dark, hopeless and pessimistic.
Maybe we should stop explaining everything through our egotistic, self-important and self-righteous views we have as a species.

I have also pondered the same idea that the earth explodes in some way where humans have 'pulled' earth's violence to them through there own behaviour. I also accept Rudi's comment as basic, and not to be thrown aside on a vague anthropomorphism.

But I have seen how odd it appears when the earth erupts in places that were in some way 'asking for it'. I accept the structures of the earth would cause the target point to be diverted, so it's not a really accurate process. After years of weighing this up, I'd have to say the evidence is hard to match with the concept. That doesn't mean there isn't some truth in it, but certainly not what you'd place money on.

The anthropomorphic self-importance is very real, but that doesn't mean the earth will be fine without humans. Sure it will survive any species' passing, but all species are there for a reason. Some potential will be lost for the earth - I don't believe it is completely indifferent to all its organic experiments. Nonetheless, the size difference just has to come down on the humans being replaceable.

This article claims that natural disasters have not become more common since 1980s

I've been aware of this, as we have discussed in another thread, but I find it hard to validate from my own perceptions. I think I'll wait for more assessments to emerge than just go with this one. I think this report came from an advisory body to the Insurance industry, and was more concerned to point to the increase of population and property values within that context.

Quote
a recent study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents the consensus among thousands of scientists, expressed little confidence in any link between climate change and the frequency of tropical cyclones.

The IPCC has to play safe, but there are plenty of other scientists who have definitely connected the two, including Australia's own Bureau of Meteorology. Generally it's been publicly acknowledged by many climate specialists that we can expect more extreme weather events. What has been hard to match up are the earthquakes, although the issue there is more focused on the effects of fracking.

Offline Nichi

  • Global Moderator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 24262
90,000 Gallon Spill
« Reply #200 on: May 17, 2016, 06:06:30 AM »
Not here, not there, but everywhere - always right before your eyes.
~Hsin Hsin Ming

Offline Michael

  • Administrator
  • Rishi
  • ******
  • Posts: 18283
    • Michael's Music Page
Re: Deepwater Horizon
« Reply #201 on: May 17, 2016, 08:35:42 AM »
BP did finally get fined some huge amount of money, but I'm unsure if it's been paid.

Such oil spills are the big risk down there.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk