Environmental theory and ideas

Written and/or translated by:		Arpad Fekete

Some language errors were noticed by:	Eszter Fekete (his sister, 2013)


Appeared on the Internet as part of the homepage of the "Free Eco Web Services"
(FEWS, earlier: FEcoWebS) project (the homepage may be otherwise called "Free
Eco Wisdom"). This TXT file collects writings from the homepage that are
valuable and translated to both Hungarian and English. These writings have
become public domain from October 19, 2013.

Version: 3.1.27
This comes from (Year-2012).(Month).(Day)

---

Contents:

1. Twelve essays of environmental theory
1.1.  Introduction
1.2.  Eco-friendly sentences
1.3.  Environmentalism and survival
1.4.  Environmentalism and faith
1.5.  Environmentalism and ethical theory
1.6.  Ethical environmentalism, good advice
1.7.  Political environmentalism, alliance
1.8.  Political environmentalism, warning

2. Amateur collection of eco-friendly ideas
2.1. Eco-friendly games
2.2. Eco-friendly, economic life
2.3. Ideas for people working in politics
2.4. Ideas for the rich
2.5. Ideas for activists
2.6. Ideas for researchers

---

I. Twelve essays of environmental theory
Part I should be a brief summary of what is important in environmentalism.

---

1.1. Introduction

We can find many things about environmental problems in greater libraries, the
media, or on the Internet. Those works are generally created by
professional environmentalists who know much, so we can usually get to know
many facts from them, usually with references. In contrast, I (the author) base
on our present knowledge instead, remind, popularize, and most importantly,
search for solutions to the problems. Firstly, we should understand that the
solution should be searched for in society instead of the sciences or
technology, as until now, mankind lacked not the power, but the willingness,
will, unity and cooperation to solve the environmental problems. The essence
can be understood by all healthy people: human activities changed the planet
Earth so much that it has become less and less fit for supporting life. If it
continues this way, it could cause the extinction of many plant and animal
species, and perhaps even of humankind, and the possible survivor people will
have to live in an unpleasant environment for a long time. The opinions are
different about the degree of danger and the extent of problems, so to
understand these things, the works of professional environmentalists are
handy. 

When we understand what problems are facing us, it is worth solving
them together. Science and technology could not and cannot provide solutions
for all problems. They only give tools, but the tools in themselves are not
sufficient to solve the environmental problems, if the will for it is not
present. Could a newer technology save Earth from the usage of the weapons of
mass destruction? Could a newer technology itself save us from a mad scientist?
Or could technology save the endangered species from extinction in the time of
great famines? Something more is needed here. It is necessary that most of the
people do what is good for both the living creatures and the whole of humankind.
Education about worldview and ethics can help, but the modification of the
economic and political system can help even more, as most people care for
environmentalism little until other ways seem to be more competitive. The
environmental movement is connected to politics closely, and is trying to
influence and decision-makers by votes, ideas, facts, and expert help.

There are areas where conservation and the cause of human survival help each
other and there are areas where they inhibit each other. If there were no
humankind, the world would probably be more natural and predictable than it is
now. Humankind, however, might be able to save Earthly life from a threat from
space, and they might be able to transport a part of the living world to another
planet. Thus we do not know if humankind does good or wrong to the living world
in the long term. We know, however, that the natural living world does good to
humankind, as it provides food, knowledge and energy. Thus a part of Nature is
worth saving anyway. It is sad that the natural living world lost more and more
areas in the beginning of the 21st century due to human irresponsibility,
and the state of the lifeless environment was also differing more and more from
what proved to be sustainable through millions of years. Afterwards, the
survival of humankind might be at stake. People should sometimes cooperate with
and sometimes compete against each other in order to survive. Environmental
agreements are examples of cooperation. There are times when it is difficult to
find the form of good cooperation. In these times it may be helpful to share
some environmentalist ideas that can cause evolutionary success to their
implementors and are compulsive thereby.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Central Intelligence Agency - The World Factbook (Washington DC, 2013, annual
publication) ... official referencing form:
The World Factbook 2013-14. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2013

Worldwatch Institute - State of the World (2013, annual publication)

Worldwatch Institute - Vital Signs (2013, annual publication)

United Nations Environment Programme - UNEP Year Book 2013 (annual publication)

United Nations Environment Programme - UNEP 2013 Annual Report (annual
publication)

---

1.2. Eco-friendly sentences

It is not important to teach fictional literature, but it is important to teach
skills, ethics and laws instead.

Rhetoric in (medieval) Trivium was still more useful than the education of
fictional literature in 20th-century Hungary.

I fear that technological development will make things worse on Earth: social
development should catch up.

If birth rates are high in Africa, poverty seems inevitable, they are
responsible. In towns and cities, birth rates could be lower.

Financial services cost money anyway. If just a small part of that money comes
from the poor, won't that make them poorer?

Cheap labour is like a magnet to poor economies. Will the development of
humanoid robots help the developed countries more?

In a great economic crisis in the future, self-sufficiency plus some surplus
may prevail, dependence on trade is risky.

What is cheaper: building a conventional state-wide infrastructure for Myanmar,
or making cities, towns and villages self-sufficient?

The State can provide quality jobs if it takes care of teaching the right
skills (and not only knowledge) in advance.

Quality work is needed to develop the economy, and if there is high
unemployment, the state should take care of providing jobs.

There are two factors in reaching readers: the quality of the book (weight),
and the quality of the campaign (acceleration). Is there a third? It might be
fame (velocity).

As David Hilbert's speech about a list of mathematical problems shaped
mathematics for a century, a collection of environmentally friendly research
tasks could shape environmentalism for a century, too.

The rich would be able to change the world much. However, they are not always
those who have the good ideas to change the world. One of the reasons of that
is that they are not those who suffer the most because of the world.

Many times it has been said that a better recycling of waste is not profitable.
If it's not profitable in the private sector, it may still be profitable as
public work.

The need for our work is greater if our creation doesn't only mean a blessing
for the community as a whole, but it can mean a direct joy to the customers,
or it can improve their lives directly, and to enjoy the results of our work
they should not need to make any more sacrifices.

Celebrities, journalists and religious leaders could bring up the theme of
environmentalism from time to time, and it is worth doing it in a better
quality.

Teachers could share the news about all (national or international)
environmental contests and competitions with pupils and students, to
encourage them to enter in these competitions instead of others.

Architects could focus on security and efficiency for not just the present
time, but for the entire planned lifetime of the building, too.

Wealth is not the cause of lower birth rates, but it is a consequence of them.

Can environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and satisfaction be
reconciled?

Human overpopulation will cause a great pressure to the environment, and it's
probable that it can only be limited by some counter-pressures like buying more
and more land for Nature, until the great crisis happens.

The knowledge of humankind has risen to a level which enables people to do
greater and greater good deeds, but greater and greater evils too... However,
technology can be limited by decreasing overpopulation, because in this case
the size of the market and specialization will decrease.

Environmentalism should not only be about a continous defense against the
problems, but it should be about a counter attack to solve them, too.

Environmental consciousness can only conquer outside of its borders.

...

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Henry David Thoreau - Walden (Ticknor and Fields: Boston, 1854)

United Nations - United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, Principles and
Guidelines (United Nations, 2008)

---

1.3. Environmentalism and survival

Human activity has harmed Nature even in the antiquity, for example, many trees
have been cut down and the elephants have disappeared from North Africa. But
since the Industrial Revolution, the development of humankind has become so much
quicker that it endangers not only Nature, but humankind itself too. In the
Cold War, the opposing forces hoarded so many weapons of mass destruction that
could have destroyed humankind in case of another world war. Since then, there
were more and more countries which were able to create such weapons, so the
danger has not ended in the beginning of the 21st century either. Afterwards,
as technology advanced, newer sources of danger have appeared, for example, if
someone created a virus deadly for humankind with the use of artifical
intelligence and gene technology. But not only the extinction of humankind should
be feared, but the rise of human suffering too. In the beginning of the 21st
century we entered an age when the detrimental effects of global warming
appear, the cheaper energy sources of humankind run out, the soil and freshwater
run down more and more, the natural life of the oceans and primeval forests is
going to lose areas more and more, human population would continue to rise and
the rich get even more technological power. In human society, the mentioned
problems could cause famines, maybe wars, and an economic crisis bigger than
the previous ones. It is possible that the international environmentalist
agreements will not be observed in the crisis, and this could make the problems
more serious. Thus humankind who have gone far from Nature will probably suffer
much, and even cannibalism can happen, but there is a great chance for the
survival of the species. If humankind does not go extinct in the short term,
small pests could cause problems in agriculture in the long term. What can we
do in this situation?

We can start living more friendly to the environment, we can join to the
environmental movement, and we can even be activists in order to reduce the
future suffering in some degree. This is just like symptomatic treatment in
many cases. However, if we do not only want a temporary solution, then we
should find the root of the problems, and we should deactivate them. It is
obvious enough that the world has changed much because of humankind's scientific
and technological advancements, and problems have become greater because of
overpopulation and humandkind's extravagant lifestyle. Humankind should realize
sooner or later that population size should be limited, otherwise it will be
limited by something worse, which comes with greater suffering. Sooner or later
the irresponsible wastage, like the wastage of one-time use packaging material
should be lessened to the minimum too, because it is not sustainable.
For the sake of environmentalism, it would be better to lessen them sooner, and
we too can make smaller steps in order to diminish them. By the way, the most
important goal now is survival, and for this purpose it should be made sure
that the countries which can create nuclear weapons do not use them, and people
do not use other fatal technologies either, if possible. It is not enough to
just disarm nuclear weapons, because people could quickly recreate them again
in case of a war. Instead, such an educational and political situation should
be created where the production and usage of nuclear weapons and other weapons
of mass destruction becomes difficult and meaningless. Humankind should learn
to forget what is worth forgetting, and it should deal with the people of
Earth's different nations more and more justly.

The environmental consciousness is present in humankind, but it is a sad
experience that both the private economy and the democratic politics served
short-term interests, because buyers and voters have chosen the better standard
of living instead of sustainability. If it goes on this way, we will probably
not be able to prevent the expected crisis, and we have to take care of our own
survival. We should understand what dangers are waiting for us, and how we can
avoid them in our own lives. There are people who tend to prepare for a sudden,
complete collapse, and their movement is called survivalism in English. They
learn about emergencies much, store food and learn to use guns. There are also
people who tend to prepare for a great economic crisis instead, and learn such
a profession that will be needed in the crisis too. There are poorer ones who
might better not beget children. There are richer people too, and they have
more opportunities to prepare for the crisis. It is worth for a rich person
of being surrounded by such allies whom the rich person supported before, they
being grateful to the rich person. The rich person might do it well if he/she
prepares to be self-sufficient and self-defensive with these people. Besides
self-sufficiency, producing means of sustenance might be a way to go too. 
Concerning this issue, it is interesting that if someone prepares for his/her
own survival, by that he/she probably helps the survival of humankind too.
Because if someone prepares for the collapse, then he/she would like to reduce
his/her dependent situation, and if dependence on trade lessens in the world,
then the consumption which harms the environment probably lessens too.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Rachel Carson - Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin, 1962)

U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency - Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War
(1975)

Lester R. Brown - World on the Edge: How to prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse?
(Earth Policy Institute, 2011)

Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich - Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?
(Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, 2013)

Jorgen Randers (Report to the Club of Rome) -
2052 - A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2012)

---

1.4. Environmentalism and faith

We can find many things on Earth with which we are not satisfied. We are not
satisfied that we should kill animals for food, and we are not satisfied either
that we should take care of removing our defecation. We are not satisfied that
society obliges us for many things, and we are not satisfied either if
criminals attack us. We are not satisfied with the morality of the people, nor
are we satisfied with religions that make the morality of the people better, if
those religions are false. But even if we were satisfied with the Earthly
world, we would not be satisfied with the consciousness that we have to die. If
we are harmed by these and other imperfections of our Earthly life, and
we dislike it, that means that we go closer to a life which we wish. If we want
to go even closer to the happy life, the place of which may be called Heaven,
then it is worth thinking on how probable is its existence, and what can we do
for making it more probable to get there.

The first world religions of history tried to answer these questions too, and
it may be the cause of their success. These religions were usually built around
a person who was considered infallible and possessing supernatural powers, and
who taught in a new way, and whose authority has grown with the spread of
the religion - and afterwards, the statements attributed to the founder were
proven by authority. Such an authoritarian religion was Christianity, for
example. By time, it turned out that some of its statements contradict mankind's
scientific advancements. Afterwards, many people ceased to be Christian, but
did not cease to like the principles which they considered good in Christianity:
the humanists still liked ethics, and the deists still had faith in God. In a
similar manner, we may believe that wonders are possible and we can go to
Heaven. However, we can approach God by understanding, and not by blind faith.
The discipline which studies the arguments for the existence of God, God's
attributes and God's will, is called Natural Theology. It is called so
because the source of its knowledge is Nature which existed before humankind,
and not sacred texts which could have been authored by wise men too.

Here we can observe that Natural Theology and environmentalism do good to each
other, because the source of the knowledge about God should be protected. We
may conjecture that it is also God's will that we should protect the
environment, to keep his creation as beautiful as before. If we improve this
world, it would be justice for us to get to a better world. Thus protecting
the environment can be one aspect of the faith in God or Heaven, and because
of this, protecting the true faith in God can be one aspect of
environmentalism. That is why Natural Theology deserves some space here.
Natural Theology is compatible not only with environmentalism, but with other
religions and science, too. Other religions can have Natural Theology as a
supplementary source of faith, a subject in school, a protocol between
religions, or even a spiritual movement. Science is not complete either without
the study of God's possible existence. Unlike the sacred texts, the teachings
of Natural Theology can grow and become more and more perfect. So Natural
Theology is like science, and it can be real science if it uses the methodology
of real science - which is not less, but more strict than 20th century science.

If we believe in Natural Theology but not in religions, one question may arise
in us: if God exists, why did he allow and probably support so many false
religions? There can be different answers to this question, for example, that
the religions God supported were better than those religions beside them, or
that God wanted to teach us how weak we are. It is also possible that exactly
those religions lived for a long time which had the support for survival of
that specific religion among their inner values, and God did support them
not specifically for their ethical values. Therefore we can imagine humankind's
knowledge about God as a convergent series, and the successful religions as
points on that series, which help us in our personal convergence towards a
proper relationship with God. If not, and we do not believe in God, Natural
Theology is still good to show the progress from tradition and authority
to reason and better foundations.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason (1794, 1795, 1807)

William Paley - Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes
of the Deity (1809, 12th edition London: Printed for J. Faulder)

Sándor Kőrösi Csoma (or Alexander Csoma Korosi) - The Life and Teachings of
Buddha (1836-1890; Calcutta, 1957)

Cafer S. Yaran - Islamic Thought on the Existence of God: With Contributions
from Contemporary Western Philosophy of Religion (Cultural Heritage and
Contemporary Change Series IIA, Islam, Volume 16, 2003, printed in the USA)

Lee Strobel - The Case for a Creator (Zondervan, 2004)

---

1.5. Environmentalism and ethical theory

A part of the world's wrongs derives from the immorality of people. In order to
make this world better, people should be more ethical and environmentally
conscious. However, the ethical and environmentally conscious people may
encounter inconveniences as a result of their lifestyle, which does not make it
attractive. In order to make the ethical lifestyle more attractive, many
solutions have been found during the history of mankind: such are, for example,
respect in society, religions, or laws which punish severely. In order to be
effective, the religions' moral-forming strength may need faith, or at least
deeming it probable or possible that statements of the religion are true. That
is why it would probably do good to everyone if those people who do not like
religions got ethical tuition.

There is a competition for survival, power and reproduction between creatures,
which we could call the mover of evolution. We might think that the race of
evolution is such a race which has no rules, so the theory of evolution has a
detrimental effect on the morals of the people. However, even evolution is
against some harmful deeds to the self: for example, smoking, drugs, or
suicide. Here we should not consider smoking as if it were a crime that is
not forgiven automatically, but as something which makes a person worsen more
and more, and as a consequence, fall behind his/her rivals more and more.

From the beginning of our written history, humankind uses domesticated plants
and tamed animals for its own goals. Humankind cares for the defense and
reproduction of these plants and animals, so these creatures need not take part
in the race of evolution, except for the extent that they need to win the grace
of people. Thus domesticated plants and tamed animals drive their energy into
the usefulness for people instead of struggle against their rivals, and this
way they can survive. Around many domesticated plants, humans weed out, because
the domesticated plants are that yield harvest. Many tamed animals are
protected from predators by humans because tamed animals give meat, milk or
eggs. Humans probably tame not only animals, but also each other, so the
evolutionary race between humans is not only about struggle against one
another, but about usefulness to one another as well. The community may help
the individual who is more useful to it.

Humankind lives in communities, so the evolution of humans is not only about a
competition between individuals, but about a competition between communities,
too. Inside a community, people are similar to each other, and thus helping a
member of the community to reproduction is nearly as important for a human as
his/her own reproduction. Evolution is about passing on the genes, the parts of
the program which is responsible for the build-up of our bodies. Inside a
community, the same genes are found more frequently than outside of it. People
may do more for the passing on their own genes by doing something great for
their community, than by begetting more children. Thus it becomes
understandable that it is evolutionarily sound if a person sacrifices his/her
life or his/her reproduction for the community. In the society of ants it works
in such an advanced way that there are ants who never reproduce, but help the
community in survival. If the community of ants came into being by evolution,
then possibly there was a time when every ant could reproduce and during
community life the present state evolved gradually, probably because helping
the teammates was evolutionary helpful for ants even then.

Apart from the interest of a group of living creatures, there is an interest
that life should survive on Earth. This started to be endangered as a result of
the presence of humankind's weapons of mass destruction and humankind's
extravagant lifestyle, but it has been in danger for a long time as well
because of the risk of the hit of a greater asteroid coming from space. The
inclination to save the entire living world presupposes intelligence, and its
motivation is similar to the motivation for making a human community survive,
and therefore humans are almost fit for solving their environmental problems.
The desire for survival is an instinct, and intelligence deems it probable that
the survival of our genes as a goal depends on the survival of some other parts
of Earthly life. That is why it seems to be logical that humans make such
decisions that increase the probability of life on Earth persisting longer. We
can call it ethical environmentalism if someone chooses to protect the
environment by decisions in his/her own power. We can call it political
environmentalism if a group makes an environmental agreement which influences
the rules of evolutionary struggle. We can call it educational environmentalism
if someone offers knowledge that urges to protect the environment.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Charles Darwin - On the Origin of Species (1859, 1872)

Charles Darwin - The Descent of Man (1871)

Richard Dawkins - The Extended Phenotype (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982)

David Attenborough - The First Eden. The Mediterranean World and Man
(William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd. & BBC Books, London, 1987)

---

1.6. Ethical environmentalism, good advice

It is not fair to work hard on environmentalism as a poor while some unethical
rich people enjoy life instead of the poor environmentalists. That's why the
poor should connect environmentalism with financial gain, but if they cannot do
it easily, maybe it's a better idea for them to take care of environmentalism
in a passive way only, without spending any time on it. This could be called
white environmentalism. However, white environmentalism can also mean the
observance of very strict ethical principles about things we shall not do, for
example, not buying anything too harmful to the environment, or not voting for
anyone or any party too harmful, not harming the environment in vain, not
overpopulating, not spreading harmful technology, and much more specific ideas.
These principles can be related to deep philosophy about life.

If we have suffered much in life, we can think about whether God is good? Maybe
God is good, but we lived in a wrong way. Perhaps we could even live more
wisely, which provides more joy. If we walked on the path towards joy all the
time, maybe we could reach it. It seems that there are two highly secure
sources of joy, so that we can be happy in at least part of our times by
concentrating on them:


- Think about what we like to think about, and do what we like to do
- Gather power and control our lives

The sources of our joy and thinking on environmental problems do not always
correspond. It is a question whether we can practice our actual sources of joy
and environmentalism and gather power at the same time? White environmentalism,
as described here, can be an answer to this question. And if we demand our
ethical values to be great, then we should practice white environmentalism in a
radical way, and this hopefully opens up the way towards the improvement of our
economic situation, so that we can take care of environmentalism in an active
way later. This means that we should give up many kinds of luxury in order to
make it more probable that other kinds of joy happen in our lives.

Faith: the third way:
For some people, there may be a third way that makes them happy, faith in God
and/or in a spiritual reward for working on a noble cause. However, the joy
coming from this is not direct, but depends on the strength of the faith and/or
beliefs, which may weaken in case of long suffering. Here are some parts of
faith which might strenghten environmentalism:

- God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe probably exists.
- God probably loves life.
- God probably wants us to love life.

List of more specific ideas in passive environmentalism:

- Those who are poorer than the average should not beget more than two children.
- Those who want to reduce carbon emissions should probably not eat meat on
Mondays or Saturdays, for example (or eat less meat).
- Environmentalists should not waste electricity and gas, so keep away from TV
and gas stoves, for example (instead, cook or fry by mirrored solar power).
- Environmentalists should not publish technological research too harmful to
the environment.
- Environmentalists should not vote for parties too harmful to the environment.
- Environmentalists should not buy products or services too harmful to the
environment.
- Environmentalists should not borrow money if it is not really needed.
- Deodorant sprays and similar materials are only worth using when needed, it
is not worth smoking, etc.
- There is an idea to put our waste in the packaging material of what we have
bought.

...

Further readings:

The Ten Commandments (from the Torah or the Bible, Old Testament)

---

1.7. Political environmentalism, alliance

Human society works according to the rules of politics. If these rules are bad,
it can cause too much suffering to the people. That is why it is worth of
making politics more perfect, in which the role of ethics multiplies. Freedom,
justice, prosperity and sustainability should belong to the most important
goals of politics. In order to achieve this, the democratically elected will
and the wise will should correspond more and more to each other, and that is
why the basic knowledge about worldview, ethics and politics should be taught
in public education, at least briefly. Environmental problems shall cause
changes in politics, too. Meanwhile, the hereby mentioned political values
should be taken care of, because it is possible that while the weight and role
of one value gets stronger, the weight and role of the other weakens.

In hard times, power often gets centralized and falls into the hands of rulers,
and it cares about liberal laws less, or at least history shows such examples
in wars. In these circumstances, the maintenance of order and the distribution
of goods is often done better by intelligent people than by outdated laws. This
insight might have been known by the Ancient Roman Republic too, because they
allowed official dictators in emergency. Thus, environmental problems mean a
theat to the freedom of people, because it is difficult to remove a ruling
class once it is not wanted. In many cases, liberal parties are in alliance
with green parties, perhaps partly due to the before-mentioned threat but not
only because of that, but because freedom and sustainability are good concepts,
and these people support good concepts. Perhaps that is why these parties used
to ally with the socialists, too, as socialism means social justice, which is a
good idea. It is another question whether these parties do what is included
in their names.

But how to protect freedom in a world which is less and less free and advances
towards a future which may need strong rule? The answer is not by radical or
conceptual liberalism that loses the support of the majority by maintaining
controversy. If a liberal party keeps choosing the way it deems good, e.g. it
supports the marriage of homosexuals, then it can lose a lot of healthy voters,
and it is possible that it will not get the support to govern because of this
reason. A liberal party should represent the liberal 80% of the population
instead of the liberal 20%, but it is better if it represents the 100% of the
population. Thus the parties of wise people in politics should be similar to each
other, as the will of the people is similar to itself, and wisdom is similar to
wisdom too. Instead, liberalism shall show itself where it helps in life, for
example, in general, due punishing taxes or incentives should be set instead of
prohibitive or coercive laws.

It is not sure that changing the political system would prove to be
detrimental, provided that it corresponds to the afore-mentioned four values
more: freedom, justice, prosperity and sustainability. It is possible that
ideal political systems differ very much from what people have had so far.
For example, it is probable that more equality of chances can be provided to
people if real estates and debts - and even shares and the like -
were not inheritable, but every person would start his/her adult life
with real estates of approximately equal value, and
without debts and public debts. Achieving this goal is, however, not easy, and
it needs longer studies in the area of political philosophy, so this is outside
of the borders of this book. This was only mentioned as an example to show that
probably there would be a more just way to divide land than by inheritance. For
dividing money and moveables, however, probably there is no better solution than
inheritance, because the parents can give these as gifts to their children, and
it might not even be possible to create a good law which restricts the
inheritance of these things. As far as there is equality of chances in the area
of real estates, it is not very bad that there are wealthier people, because
this way people feel motivation for success, and part of them can be happy enough,
and the rich can even improve this Earth in some ways a community would not.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Aristotle - Politics (from a famous ancient greek author)

Robin Lane Fox - The Classical World: An Epic History of Greece and Rome
(Penguin Books, 2006)

Karl Marx - Capital: Critique of Political Economy (1867)

---

1.8. Political environmentalism, warning

Politics could change the world much, but accordingly, politics is not without
risks. Many interests collide there and people are competing there with
all their talents, which is not always ethical. Politicians can make people
believe that other politicians are worse than they are in reality, so the
people would hate politicians more, which would make things worse. Politicians
can also mislead or trick people to win support, which would make the way
of a righteous politician harder. Generally, politicians are just as good as
human nature is, that is why it is not advantegous for an enlightened person to
compete with them. If an enlightened person wants to change politics, it may be
enough for him/her to share thoughts and ideas, and if those thoughts and ideas
are proper, probably there will be people who use them anyway. It is better for
a politician to consider a philosopher's idea than to make a biased decision,
and it is better for philosophers, too, if their ideas are double-filtered by
politicians. 

In a democracy, political power is just for 4-5 years, which is not as secure
as the power of a wealthy person. That's why it seems to be more noble to seek
economic power instead of political one. A wealthy person can hide more easily
than either a politician or a celebrity, which may be important in the age of
technology. The life of the wealthy is desired, because they do not have to
work if they do not want to, and they can satisfy their desires easily. The
life of politicians, on the other hand, is many times about struggle and danger,
at least in those ages when mankind is not meek enough. 

If a politician makes an error, then many people will hate him for it, but if a
wealthy person makes an error, he/she usually loses only money. To be
unsuccessful, however, is not always the same as to make errors, so it is
possible that the people will hate a politician even if that politician is good,
e.g. if it is a necessity that the living standards fall, and politicians
cannot do anything to prevent it from falling. 

A politician usually has to follow the philosophy of a party, but a rich person
can choose his/her own philosophy. This, however, does not need to be the case
in an ideal political system where it would be a civil right to enter into and
remain in any party, and the elections inside parties would be democratic.
However, we do not live in such an ideal political system, so it is probably
better for a free mind to be rich than to be a politician.

Politicians should usually make an oath, and the text of the oath may be
imperfect or it may demand too much from a righteous person. This, however,
does not need to be the case in an ideal political system, where no oath should
be made, only obligations shall be formulated. However, we do not live in such
an ideal political system, so it is probably better for a righteous person to
be rich than to be a politician.

In a small country, the power of the politicians is bounded by international
agreements just like the power of the rich is bounded by laws. If people
have to act according to fix rules anyway, then it is more worth in a small
country being rich than being a politician, because a rich person can affect not
only one country, but other countries, too. 

The rich can decide freely whether to invest their capital into
environmentalism. Countries, however, are obligated to do what is the will of
the people anyway, and they cannot differ from it much.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Andrew Carnegie - Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie (London, CONSTABLE & CO.
Limited, 1920)

Ron Chernow - Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (1998)

Bill O'Reilly, Martin Dugard - Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That
Changed America Forever (Henry Holt and Co., 2011)

Bill O'Reilly, Martin Dugard - Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot (Henry Holt
and Company, 2012)

---

Chapter left out: On the necessity of limiting overpopulation
Chapter left out: On the liberal way to limit overpopulation
Chapter left out: On the ideal way to limit overpopulation
Chapter left out: On the coercive way to limit overpopulation
Chapter left out: Environmentalism and justice (although it is half done)
Chapter left out: Distribution of environmentalist work (although I wrote)

In a world where the good learners were richer, the free version of this
book could have more chapters by these, too.

---

II. Amateur collection of eco-friendly ideas
Part II is about eco-friendly ideas which are in raw format, and are not edited
into coherent essays...

---

2.1. Eco-friendly games

For about ten or more years of their life, people are children and like to
spend their free time with games and toys. That is why it is important to make
games and toys more environmentally friendly. A game or toy can be more
environmentally friendly by using less resources, providing a greater
educational value or engaging the children for more time in an environmentally
friendly way. Books explaining the rules of such games are probably friendly to
the environment. However, it is very important to make the game or toy very
popular as well, because otherwise children would not really want to play with
it. Children usually follow fashion, and people could support a game so that it
can be fashionable by a popular story or something else. For this, the creation
of a new game might be needed, and a rich person or alliance could support the
creation of such popular eco games and toys, setting a competition between game
developers with alike material resources, and rewarding them according to their
success. I (the author), for example, had the idea to create a computer game
which would be about saving the life on Earth in the 21st century, by
cooperation. In this case, the term for game campaign would coincide with the
term for environmentalist/political campaign. For the environment, it seems to
be better if the computer game is turn-based and multi-player at one computer,
or hot-seat. For the environment, it also seems to be better if there are parts
of the game which can be played without a computer too, promoting new games
which are more environmentally friendly. It is just a matter of money and
creativity to create such a game.

The people who believe in God and the philosophers might not regard every game
as good as others. It is a right question to ask which are the games that are
the most ethical to play. To decide this question, many criteria should be
considered. Such criteria are the following: it should use environmentally
friendly accessories, it should teach what is good, it should help to form a
community, it should not help the
development of artifical intelligence too much, it should be interesting and
fashionable, it should be accessible by the poor people too, it should cause
joy to the less talented too, it should do good to the bodily and mental
health, and it should be apt to earn money from it, as a sport, or as a creator 
of puzzles. Apart from these, there may be other criteria. The game can be more
interesting if its rules are not too complicated, but at the same time, human
creativity can be manifested in it. It is quite hard to create a game which
complies with all the mentioned criteria, although that would be the ideal. The
lesson to learn from this is that we should not only be environmentally
friendly, but ethical in other aspects, too.

Environmentalism is a serious issue, and it is about important problems, but
one does not always like to fight a war in which one is likely to lose. That is
why those who have suffered much because of the world, and made many sacrifices
in order to make the world better, deserve to play, in order not to think
about the world, and get more success and sources of joy. At least, before I
(the author) was 30, games meant the primary source of spiritual joy to me.
Even the hypothesis came to my mind that a happy person can probably diet, care
for his/her body, exercise, and have temperance more easily, because it is more
difficult for the sad people to make sacrifices. A professional player could
even earn money by skill games, or by writing about games, or by taking part in
creating new games. The therapeutic and community-making effects of games are
not negligible either. It is not always easy, however, to find a proper
playmate. Whoever wins many times, might feel the game more dull, and whoever
loses many times, probably does not enjoy the game as much. These times a
voluntary handicap by the stronger player may help at the starting of the game,
for example, when a grandmaster of chess plays without rooks against a child.
This way any of them wins, may enjoy the game. So if we create a game, it is
worth taking care of opportunities for voluntary handicaps, or for different
skill levels for one-team games. If we play so much that it gives us happiness,
and if we can win from our handicapped situation, why should not we try again
to solve our problems in real life?

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Mary C. Hofmann - Games for Everybody (1905)

Leigh Anderson - The Games Bible: Over 300 Games - the Rules, the Gear, the
Strategies (Workman Publishing Company, 2010)

---

2.2. Eco-friendly, economical life

There are some trivial advice for eco-friendly and economical life: usage of
renewable energy sources and other eco-friendly products, spending less on
other things, gathering waste selectively and selling some kinds of it,
investing in environmentalism. These advice, however, might still not be enough
to make our lifestyle more eco-friendly than that of the people living in
Nature. New advice that is eco-friendly and economical at the same time, is
always welcome. On the other hand, if we want to protect the environment even
more, then we might go into a worse economic state - but this is not
necessarily a problem.

There is something we can learn from gambling: the more money we want to win,
the higher the risk is. Can we possibly choose a life strategy where luck
is on our side? Yes, if our goal is right. If our goal is not too big, then we
can usually reduce the risks, and thus we can reach our goals more easily.
Therefore it is important to think about the most important goals in our lives,
and if it is possible, concentrate on reaching those goals. In our age, the
21st century, perfect environmentalism counts as a very large goal, so
here too, it can be worth selecting what parts of Nature are more important
to save than the others.

Even if long-term projects do not give us enough joy, we can probably improve
our real-life situation by little steps which do. Such little steps can be, for
example, games which improve our mental or physical powers (like scientifically
tested memory games, archery, or table tennis), or collecting free things,
especially downloading free documents from the Internet which can help in our
lives (for example, books about health and wealth, or about environmentalism
and economy). Apart from owning an electronic library, for the less busy people
it is probably a good idea to own some houseplants, too (like Aloe Vera), and
make them proliferate freely, creating value. The mould may cost some money,
but the pot can be from a reused PET bottle too.

Writing and programming are such kinds of spiritual work that are not worth
being done in too much time, because they do not move our body adequately, and
they fill our minds with letters. If a programmer wants to read and write a
lot, too, then some areas of his/her brain might be overstrained. That is why
the people in similar professions had better consider to decrease the time
spent on writing and coding, and substitute it with other works. With an adult
mind, it is more easy to decide which art or craft is worth choosing for a poor
person. It is not worth choosing a job where only the combined work of many
people can be really successful, because it is not certain that the poor can
find a job in it, or be a boss. On the other hand, it is not worth
choosing a job which people can go without. Based on these principles, the
following arts and crafts seem to be ideal, which may not even need too much
money for the retraining: repair and fix different things (which is
advantageous to environmentalism too, because there will be less waste),
preserve different arts and crafts from the old times (which is probably doing
good to the environment too), work in health care and alternative treatments
(which are related to environmentalism too), and do jobs in connection with
security and safeguarding (which might be useful in case of a complete
collapse). Do-it-yourself (DIY) crafts might be even better than repairing
things, because repair depends on things to repair. There are probably similar
ones, especially for those who have less principles.

If we sort and get rid of our objects from time to time, we can win some empty
space, we can be more mobile, and we can even take advantage of these objects
by exchanging them for something else, or by giving them away and collect
gratitude. Apart from that, getting rid of things has spiritual and
secret-keeping significance too. During sorting, our memories come back once
again, we evaluate them, we rediscover the valuable, and get rid of the
useless, to make our spirit more easily get rid of it, too. If we forget about
something in our lives, it is better if it is hidden from others as well. It is
possible that the process of forgetting is like getting younger. It is worth of
doing a similar cleanup to our files stored on the computer and messages stored
on the Internet, with a special regard to those which are wrong. This way we can
more easily find the important data, too, if necessary. Sorting and getting rid
of things does good to the environment because there is less need for mining
due to the recycled material.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Aristotle - Nichomachean Ethics (work of a famous ancient greek author)

P.T. Barnum - The Art of Money Getting (1880)

Talane Miedaner - Coach Yourself to Success: 101 tips from a personal coach for
reaching your goals at work and in life (Contemporary Books, 2000)

---

2.3. Environmental ideas for people in politics

Some scientists conduct such research that probably does more harm to the
ecosystem than good, for example, those who are genetically modifying
creatures, who want to simulate the human brain in a machine, who do
experiments with the smallest particles of matter, who ease the production of
the weapons of mass destruction, or who increase the efficiency of the people
in exploiting the planet. These scientists should not be supported from the
money of the state. The scientists' salary should depend on how much good they
do.

Foreign currency loans are like gambling. Even if we do not speak about the
alleged tricks of the banks with the rates of exchange at the end of months,
we should mention the ethical issues about the availability of this service to
the people. Those who get these loans may not possess enough mental
capabilities to judge whether these loans will be good to them or not. That is
why it should be regulated more who can get such loans, and on what conditions.
This is important not only for the persons who would get these loans, but for
the persons' competitors and for the persons' families too. The competitors
would have less chance to win in a sustainable (loan-free) way, and there would
be more burden on the children than on the their parents with loans.
Paternalism, sustainable competition, family matters and population control can
all be reasons for regulating foreign currency loans, not to mention the
Islamic or the early Christian laws that prohibit all loans with interest. In
short, people should not owe more money than a specified amount, and this
amount of money, or the maximal value of the loans should be specified by the
state, and not by the banks. This would imply that loans should not be foreign
currency loans...

If every kind of laptops used the same kind of recharger, then it would be
easier to reuse these rechargers for laptops. This would, in one hand, diminish
the harm to the environment, and in the other hand, it would make it easier for
a firm producing solar cells to produce laptop-rechargers with solar cells.
Apart from laptops, it can be worth standardizing the recharger equipments for
other electronic gadgets too, and maybe even the accumulators belonging to them
as well. This way the mass usage of cheap solar cells would become possible. If
we go further, it might be worth standardizing some parts of computers and
other electronic gadgets too, to make more use of the older or not functioning
machines. If we go even further, we can extend this principle to many other
machines, moreover, even for such things as the packaging of yoghurt. It is
possible that it is not in the interest of the vendors. If the vendors do not
agree to do this, then the realization of the plan is the task of the people in
politics.
However, we should take care of not restricting the people's liberty
unnecessarily because of this: it is only worth standardizing if it's really
reasonable, and a significant improvement can be achieved along with an
insignificant amount of inconvenience; so if we do more good than harm.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

A.C. Grayling - What is good? (2003; Phoenix, London, 2004)

Robert Van De Weyer - Against Usury: Resolving the Economic and Ecological
Crisis (SPCK Publishing, 2010)

Rohan D'Souza - Environment, Technology and Development: Critical and
Subversive Essays (2012)

---

2.4. Environmental ideas for the rich

The majority of the people do not care much for the environment in their free
time, that is why it may be important to remind them about environmentalism
from time to time. Holidays or festivities like "Earth Day" can help reaching
the masses, and can turn their spiritual development towards environmentalism.
Religion used the same kind of trick long ago. The rich could support many
environmental holidays or festivities. By the way, it would be good if an
environmental holiday became as widespread as Christmas, or maybe more. In
order to achieve this goal, the rich could do a campaign or a lobby. Note that
"Earth Day" might be called "International Mother Earth Day" incorrectly, as
Earth is not an animal, so it has no gender. We can even deem it possible that
the life on Earth has more decision power than the stars on the Sky.

There are farmers who would like to produce ingredients of food on the land in
an environmentally friendly way, but it is difficult for them to sell those
ingredients of food. There are also restaurants that would like to have a
trustworthy source of those ingredients, from which they could produce the food
they offer. However, there can be traders who stand in-between, taking away
some of the profit. That is why an alternative construction might be more
sustainable, where the farmer and the restaurant would form one company. This 
way they could produce not only conventional food, but special food based on
rare plants too. Also, they could produce the seeds for their own plants to
make sure they are all right. This would be a great opportunity to create
environmentally friendly restaurants (GMO-free food, ethically treated animals,
no hybrid plants, not much chemicals, more vegetables). The rich could
accelerate this process by taking part in the business. 

The next idea comes from the example of FreeRice.com. In 2012, that website
hosts a free quiz game, for example, about synonyms of English words, and for
each correct answer, some grains of rice is donated to the hungry people in a
poor country. The rice is paid by those whose advertisements are there on the
website. Well, an improvement of this idea might be implemented by almost any
good web programmer, and in 2012, there are already websites similar to
FreeRice.com, but the rich could improve this idea more. The basic idea is that
more customers could be attracted to some services by telling that a part of
their profit goes for philantropic purposes, and in our case, for
environmentalism. Different rates of giving away to philantropy might suit the
different kinds of services, maybe zero, maybe 50%, maybe 100%. The rate can be
higher for those services which do not need material goods or extra workforce.
For example, works under copyright protection, social networking websites,
concerts or tourist attractions can be made more popular and more profitable
this way. This idea is worthy of a try instead of organizing prize games, too.

We can give our unneeded things away, exchange them for something else, or even
sell them one by one. However, this might not be the thing that we want. Some
of our things may be too valuable for giving away, but at the same time, too
cheap for spending time with the selling. In many cases, we could earn more
money by working than by spending the same time taking photos of our stuff,
uploading them to auction websites, writing messages to the buyers, and
arranging the details of shipments. Exchange or barter may also need too much
time. That is why it would be handy if there were a trader who would buy all of
our old (either usable or repairable - in short, sellable) stuff in bulk,
and sell them in a shop. Actually, this is not a new idea, so there may be
examples of it in the world, but not yet in every city and town. There may be
shops which buy and sell used books, used clothes, used gadgets, or things from
the previous centuries, but shops are rare that buy or sell every kind of cheap
and sellable object. However, people might consider buying used prams,
bicycles, toys, tools, collections, musical instruments, furniture, or anything
else which endures and can be bought in other shops. The rich could open shops
which would buy and sell every sellable thing, and this could lessen the need
for new things and the pressure on the environment.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Global Reporting Initiative - G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines
(Amsterdam, 2013)

David Bornstein - How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power
of New Ideas, Updated Edition (Oxford University Press, USA; 2007)

---

2.5. Environmentalist ideas for activists

To spare more ink in the world, it would be better if mankind used better
fonts. In current word processor programs, there are quite good fonts which can
save more paper, for example, "Liberation Sans Narrow". However, we want to
save more ink as well, and we could possibly do that by omitting some parts of
the glyphs, for example, we could omit the upper straight part of the letter P,
making the glyph something like a hook. In fashion and branding, there are
already similar solutions for other letters, and they are popular. The creation
of a public domain font which would change all or most of the letter glyphs in
a similar manner, could cause a considerable saving of ink for mankind, if it
becomes fashionable. This font could differ so much from the conventional latin
letters that we could use another name for it. I (the author) am not a
professional font developer, but I found a public domain font on the Internet,
and changed it with the open-source program FontForge, spending much of my free
time on it for many days, and it turned out that the font would consume more
paper than others. That is why more time and expertise is needed here.

Some environmentalist organizations offer translation work to some activists,
but a translator activist can translate environmentalist materials even without
cooperation. Books that are already in the public domain are a good choice for
this. The text of the CIA World Factbook, for example, which can be found on
the website of CIA, is in the public domain and it contains very much
information relevant to environmentalism, so it would be welcome to read it in
other languages. There are also some classic works which are relevant to
environmentalism, for example, "The Coal Question" by William Stanley Jevons,
or "An essay on the Principle of Population" by Thomas Malthus. As there are
lots of new and free, but not public domain environmentalist materials
issued by organizations like the UNEP and others, a translator activist could
also have the idea of translating a specific publication, and try to ask
permission for it. However, it is really worth of translating only those
publications which were successful in their original language, and will be read
by many, because there are many choices in free environmentalist works, and
quality matters very much.

On the Internet, there are lots of free documents in connection with
environmentalism. An activist who has a computer and an Internet-connection,
could create one or more collections of documents from these, to fit on one CD
or DVD, like the 2008/9 Wikipedia Selection for schools, or the Project
Gutenberg's CD and DVD project. (Note that the licenses should be read
carefully before doing this.) This CD or DVD could even be shared with other
activists. This way the activists would depend less on the Internet service,
and this can be handy in case of a crisis. However, it can be useful not only
in a crisis, but when suggesting reading ideas to other activists, or in case
when it is feared that there is a surveillance on the Internet about what a
person reads. However, if an activist creates a collection of documents, the
trustworthiness of that activist is really important. It is better if there are
more activists working on this, preferably associated with an environmentalist
organization, and check their work multiple times.

In the time of the writing of this, many petitions can be found on the Internet
connected to environmentalism, which can be signed by anyone. By signing these,
we may contribute to the success of the petitions, which means environmentalist
success. Here it is important to note that it is not worth signing all of the
petitions, because the texts of many petitions are not perfect. For example, I
(the author) probably signed some imperfect petitions formerly, but I do not
want to sign any more such petitions in the future. Petitions which are sent to
their recipients in a different language than the signers' known languages
are not perfect. Petition websites that do not show exactly what is signed
by the signer and what is got by the recipient, are imperfect. Petitions that
tell anything about the future as a certainty, or present uncommon knowledge as
certainly known by the signers, are imperfect. Anyway, the petition is worth
signing only if we deem it probable that the petition is beneficial, and the
statements written in the petition are true, and this holds more often if the
petition was made by a famous organization. In addition to that, for our own
sake it is probably not worth of signing those petitions either that need our
home addresses to sign them, or which are only hosted on a website that has too
strict or risky conditions of use, or that send separate emails to the
recipient in the name of each signer. Those petitions, however, in which we do
not find any error, are worth signing for the sake of our environment, and it
is worth sharing them with some of our acquaintances.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

Dr. Gene Sharp - The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Vol. 2: The Methods of
Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973)

Randy Shaw - The Activist's Handbook (University of California Press; 1996,
2001)

---

2.6. Environmentalist ideas to researchers

Although environmentalism appeared only in the modern times, humankind changed
the environment even in the ancient times, for example, many kinds of animals
and plants disappeared then. A professional historian, for example, who can
read many original ancient texts, could write a book about the history of the
degradation of the environment, with regard to the ancient ages. If he/she uses
many citations and proofs for his/her statements, the book will be better.
Another historian could write another book about the history of the degradation
of the environment from the industrial revolution until today (optionally,
mentioning some of the efforts taken against the problems).

Keeping the pilot flame on might be necessary for convenience's sake or to
prevent an explosion due to a broken boiler. However, pilot flames consume very
much gas, so it would probably be good to solve the question of security and of
convenience in other ways. This is a noble task for inventors. Also, there is
the question what happens if the gas runs out, the flame dies, and the gas
comes back afterwards? This could happen, for example, in the times of energy
crisis, or if the authorities let the gas to be used only in the nights. Making
an environmentally friendly invention as secure as the pilot flame is the real
challenge, as each part of an advanced technology can go wrong. If it doesn't
work in any other way, convenience can be sacrifized for economy and
environmentalism (e.g. by having to turn an extra switch while using the gas).

We can find much data about the extent of environmental problems. We know
little, however, about the human resources available for solving these problems.
The plan which aims to save civilization should consider what part of the
population consists of people harmful to the environment, and passive people
who live in an environmentally friendly way, and active people who even spend
time on environmentalism. This research could be done, for example, by a
questionnaire, where the categorization into the formerly mentioned obscure
groups could be done from answers to factual questions. Apart from that,
the inclination of people towards environmentalism is worth studying by
scientific methods, too, as well as their inclination towards the goal of
limiting overpopulation. The aim of these studies is, of course, to make more
and more people environmentally friendly and environmentalist, but if it does
not succeed, the environmental movement should still work. We can also improve
the environmentalist activity of humankind by improving the efficiency of the
good deeds of passive environmentally friendly and active environmentalist
people.

There are many freely accessible environmentalist books, and there are many
public domain books, too, that are on a topic somewhat related to the
environment, for example, on economy. An activist could read some important
books among these, the essence of which he/she could write on one page, to
which he/she could add short commentaries. This writing could be like the works
that contain the shortened versions of compulsory readings at school. This way
some time may be spared for some environmentalists, and in addition, it could
help them decide which book to read. Writing a book about the essence of
other books may need more time than writing something else, but it can be done
by any intellectual, with little sacrifice from a person who likes to read
these books anyway, and the product would probably be interesting, given that
the books in it were famous books already.

As David Hilbert's speech about a list of mathematical problems shaped
mathematics for a century, a professional collection of environmentally
friendly research tasks could shape environmentalism for a century, too.

Further readings (these were not necessarily read by the author):

United Nations - Millenium Development Goals Report (annual publication,
2005-2015)

Edmund Burke - The Environment and World History (University of California
Press, 2009)