Biodiversity = People

The Green Revolution was all about separating farmers from their seeds. The ideas from this came out of WWII. It was to address world food shortages and food insecurity, with the idea that agriculture needed to be taken out of the hands of people. Large investments could be made to increase production, then commodities could be tracked so investments could be rationalized. This worked, with a huge price paid by the environment and biodiversity.

Now we’re making the same mistake all over again. We’re turning nature into commodities and, in order to make large investments, we’re taking matters out of the hands of people.

Removing People from the Equation

It all starts with the very undemocratic and faceless Convention on Biological Diversity. The only thing this institution is concerned with is manipulating the finances behind agriculture and biodiversity, and has no interest in ordinary people. The fact that I might have some tiny bit of influence there is the source of well founded resentment among many who work with biodiversity, because who’s listening to them?

Doesn’t anyone else share my concerns over plans to give the Brazilian government a lot of money to protect their biodiversity? Just how is this going to work, and how is this going to help? What’s president Bolsonaro going to do when you give him a big pile of money? Buy a new car? Since this money has been under discussion for so long, it seems likely the destruction of the Amazon has been accelerated, in order to increase the urgency of this payment. It’s the people of Brazil that should be paid for taking care of their own environment, not the government.

The issue of over-fishing the oceans can be solved through reorganizing it’s use. Reduce the size of vessels and nets to make it small scale, and limit markets to local populations. Fish is not a human need, and this isn’t rocket science. The world finally addressed the problems with tobacco use by restricting marketing and use. Many problems can be solved in a similar way, including the way oceans are managed.

New supranational institutions are going to further remove people from the equation and make matters worse.

Biodiversity Emergency

We’re in the middle of a covid emergency. We’re all aware of the drastic measures that have been taken. It’s now time for environmental and biodiversity emergencies of the same scope. Not by making the same mistakes and paying large amounts of money to governments or institutions to do the wrong things, but by addressing real needs in an urgent way.

Importantly biodiversity is inextricably linked to people and the genes within them. This idea goes far beyond something philosophical. Biodiversity depends on good management from people, and people depend on the many things biodiversity gives them. Only people, as individuals, can restore their environment. The most important things needed to accomplish this are the freedom and capacity to move forward.

Reconstructing Biodiversity

Stock Photo
Stock photo

In what can only be described as a well funded and coordinated effort, biodiversity is in the news again.

…the financial value of ‘ecosystem services’ is increasingly guiding policy.

I find the idea of this almost too ridiculous to comment on. About all I can say is whatever guiding policy is developed, it shouldn’t interfere with real work others are trying to get done. What’s been done so far has been so clumsy, it doesn’t seem likely anything useful will emerge, but there’s still a lot of potential for destroying ecosystems and interfering with people’s work. A top down approach like this will never succeed, and time is precious at the moment. It’s really an imperative that efforts like this fail as quickly as possible, so the world can move on to something that works.

Mangrove Forests

Consider for example the Bezos Earth Fund recent contribution to the WWF in order to restore mangrove forests. While I don’t know the details of this particular contribution, I think in general this is the worst kind of solution. Certainly nothing is going to be gained by planting a new forest where one used to be, without addressing the causes of the deforestation in the first place. A better overall approach might be to focus on preserving the mangrove forests that remain, or community building in general.

The WWF is not in the business of community building, but a healthy forest can’t exist without a healthy community having a vested interest in it. A healthy mangrove forest is much more than planting a bunch of mangrove trees, and biodiversity in general needs to be considered. The community needs much more than a few $15/hr jobs that last a short time during planting, and maybe come back at harvest time when it’s time to export the wood products. If the mangrove forest is owned by a corporation, it’s going to contribute to the problem of land grabbing, and put land ownership beyond the means of many people. No one is going to care about a forest if they don’t own it.

Building Communities

A healthy community needs universal health care. Everyone needs enough money to buy what they need, on a level that’s ideally middle class. The forest and local economy then needs to be developed, and produce products and services for people to spend this money on, like food, housing, energy, clothing and so on. At the beginning, and times of crisis, it’s probably going to mean direct cash payments to individuals and small businesses, much in the same way many governments are providing COVID relief. The costs of this needs to be paid for either by donations made by wealthy people, or taxes imposed on them. The long term problems will never be solved without reducing the big gaps between rich and poor.

Land needs to be given to members of the community. This might be made available for purchase at a reasonable price, or for example in the form of 100 year land grants. These land grants could be renewed if the land continued to be put to good use.

The focus of these forests needs to be producing sustainable products for local consumption. This means legalizing and eliminating administrative and financial burdens associated with these products. For example seed laws need to be eliminated so people can grow their own food and save their own seeds. Patents, IPR and regulations need to be eliminated that interfere with day to day needs and affairs.

In order for communities around the world to support one another, laws that interfere with this need to be eliminated. Biodiversity needs to be maintained in-situ, in multiple locations independently, and needs to be able to move and be used freely around the world. There should be no central ‘doomsday vault’ whose existence means other collections need to be destroyed. Of course genuine plant health issues need to be considered, but when these issues don’t exist, they shouldn’t be regulated.

Bottom up approach

Of course biodiversity issues are all more complex than what’s laid out here, but attempts at a top down approach need to stop. Paying governments or corporations for ‘ecosystem services’ is not going to solve any problems, or make anyone care. It’s time to start on a bottom up approach, beginning with basic human needs, and progressing to helping people take care of their own environments.

What to do about anti-vaxxers, anti-lockdowners, 5G mobile protesters and so on…

In Europe there’s a new phenomenon of groups protesting these issues, often violently. We sort of all know they are coming out of America’s far-right groups in an election year, but many people don’t really understand where they come from, what they mean or what to do about them. Most people think the only thing to do is ignore them, but by understanding them better there’s much more we can do to confront them.

Here in The Netherlands, there are groups who have appeared out of nowhere, and members who have been identified as cocaine users and people previously involved in violence related to football (soccer) matches. They don’t really have any spokespeople or figureheads, not a lot of organization or public debates on their issues and in general not a lot of sense in what they’re doing. They are well enough organized to apply for demonstration permits and pay fees, and estimate the number of people attending, but otherwise don’t seem to have the backing of any known organization. In general, they just seem like they’re out for a fight with the police. In a small country like The Netherlands, this really stands out. It’s not like they can just be strangers from ‘out of state’. They have to be locals, and someone should know who they are and where they came from.

The mainstream press, especially English language, is also playing a role here. The BBC for example had a sort of spooky infomercial article on this, with very little real news, but rather a video with strange people saying weird things, and completely lacking any point. This kind of article just gives legitimacy where there was none before. A local news website that mostly has translated news from Dutch outlets, had an article highlighting the difference in childhood MMR vaccination rates between 2019 and 2020. The suggestion was this was an indication of the anti-vaccination trends in the country, but what the article didn’t say is there was no MMR vaccination program in the country before 2019, as is the case in a lot of places outside of the US. There is also simply no need for an anti-vaccination movement here, because there are no mandatory vaccinations. The article also said the parts of the country where the vaccination rates were the lowest were the most religious, as if the people choosing not to get vaccinated were the least educated or most abnormal. It was a completely misleading cooked-up article, either a paid placement or someone completely unfamiliar with the topic just blindly translating a misleading press release.

The Difference Between Organic and Artificial Movements

The Black Lives Matter is a good example of an organic movement. It’s clear what the issues are, and there are sympathies worldwide. It comes from unarmed black people being killed by police, and the demands are clear. There are large numbers of people speaking very clearly about it on social media as well as the mainstream news. Disagreements that may exist in the movement are minimal and unimportant. There are also clearly no overriding business interests behind this movement.

Vaccinations, 5G mobile services and covid-19 lockdowns all have business interests behind them. I think most people would agree that none of these are really interesting enough to go out and demonstrate over, and hardly interesting enough to even have a discussion about them. In fact, if we have any position or opinion about these issues at all, it probably comes out of statements made by other people, and we probably take issue with some of these statements.

The fact of the matter is it costs huge amounts of money to ‘create’ movements like this, something only a billionaire could afford. It costs money to pay for misleading press releases, to create and run organizations that appear out of nowhere. You have to pay for lobbyists to cause politicians to react to the issues, for people to give misleading information on social and mainstream media, pay for trolls to disrupt constructive exchanges on social media, and so on. This is really a major amount of money, especially when you consider this is not just limited to a single country but movements being created worldwide.

Consider Vegetarianism as an Example

I think most people now know every vegetarian is different, with different reasons for not eating meat. Some are vegan, some eat fish on Fridays, some eat meat once a month or only at restaurants when they eat out. As long as someone considers themselves a vegetarian, they are. Furthermore there are no health risks, and as long as you are eating a fairly normal and varied diet, there is no risk of deficiencies.

As a vegetarian now for about 40 years, I’ve really seen the issue evolve quite a lot. If you’re young and reading this, you probably missed a lot of this. At the beginning it was more about needing to remind people, because the concept was a little bit new and there was some confusion. When someone gave you food, it was always necessary to look at it carefully to be sure. There was also the discussion of chicken broth in otherwise vegetarian soup and so on. For a long time it was always necessary to pay attention to quantity, because if a nicely prepared vegetarian dish is present in an otherwise all meat buffet, there often won’t be enough left for the vegetarian if others go first. It also isn’t possible for example to have a nice meal only eating a salad made from iceburg lettuce, and there needs to be a little variety and some starch or vegetable protein. Some people took this to mean all vegetarians were hostile, picky, greedy and wanted non-vegetarians to be forced to eat vegetarian food.

At some point there were enough vegetarians the meat industry started to notice. There’s big money in meat, and a drop in consumption of even a few percent gets noticed quickly. The food industry started investing in everything I mentioned above, like lobbyists to influence food policy, food pyramids in school to teach school children that meat and diary were some of the most important things to eat. There were ads on TV, and later on the Internet. Organizations popped up out of nowhere supposedly promoting vegetarian food, but actually just furthering the divisions and misinformation that already existed. It became necessary to establish exactly what kind of vegetarian each was, and it became impolite for example to not provide fish to a vegetarian who expected it, or eggs and dairy to a lacto-ovo vegetarian.

Now, thankfully, we are at a more normal situation with vegetarians. Vegetarians are free to choose what they do and don’t eat, and to be vegan if they want Most people understand it’s acceptable to serve vegan food to someone who says they’re vegetarian, or an all vegan meal to a large group of people when many dietary preferences have to be taken into account. Meat eaters are allowed to enjoy an occasional vegetarian meal, if they want. Living in The Netherlands where a great deal of the world’s meat is produced, I can also say people eating less meat has had a major impact on the environment. The long term damage of past meat consumption is also very visible here.

Anti-vaxxers, anti-lockdown, anti-5G mobile services

So back to the main point of this post. Why are these things an issue, and why are billionaires spending money trying to bring these things forward? The reason is there are financial and political issues behind them, and they are trying to create confusion and make anyone who may have legitimate arguments against them to seem like crackpots.

What can we do about them? There is a very simple answer to this. We can work backwards from the confusion they are trying to create, then understand what the underlying issues are and start a dialog over the real issues. Instead of the 40 years it took the world to do this over vegetarians, we can work together to do this in a far shorter time for vaccinations, the covid-19 lockdown and 5G services. If as a society we can be more effective at settling these issues based on truth, we will eliminate the reason for billionaires to cause this sort of disruption with fake news in our democracies. Indeed, if we learn how to work backwards from the issues billionaires try to create in this way, we can make it counter productive for the billionaires to try in the first place.

Working Backwards

Here are some of my ideas for working backwards from these issues. If you think I’m wrong, or extreme or whatever, rather than marching off in a huff I challenge you to do your own research and come up with your own ideas. Here are some of my thoughts.

Covid-19 Lockdown: Ending the lockdown benefits large companies depending on cheap labor the most. It’s also the billionaires who’s money is invested in these companies, who are both benefiting the most from the current government bailouts as well as have the most to lose from a prolonged downturn of the economy.

5G Services: Mobile services have become too cheap to be profitable. In order to be profitable a mobile subscription has to cost at least about $12/month. Companies that offer cheaper subscriptions are often doing so at a loss, hoping to keep you as a customer for future more expensive services. For example, I have a 4G subscription costing about $5/month with a reasonable package of calling and data. When 5G becomes available in my area, they are going to have to offer a lot more than a faster data connection and a larger package to up-sell me.

5G antennas are very large and ugly, and must be placed closer together than 4G. Setting up the system is very expensive, and requires a lot of energy and finite mined resources. I don’t think it’s very sensible that governments are allowing such a system to be built and clutter the landscape, as long as 4G continues to work well. At least at the moment, I’m not able to see any added value of 5G.

Vaccinations: Just like everything else in the world, all vaccines are different. There can be different reasons to be concerned about safety. There are many different ways of creating vaccines, including GMO and synthetic biology techniques, and there are different reasons for being concerned about the safety of these techniques. There is the much discussed issue of herd immunity, and many vaccines won’t work on their own but require some existing herd immunity. Does this mean the vaccine is faulty? Is it really the responsibility of the rest of us to provide this herd immunity for the vaccine manufacturers?

Many vaccine programs started in the 1960s. What have we learned? Are the vaccines given then still necessary today?

What about the survival rate for diseases like German measles? We know the basic method for treating a Covid-19 patient. Can these methods be used for measles patients, and will this bring the fatality rate down near zero? Clearly the measles vaccine isn’t working properly, because we still have outbreaks, and people who are vaccinated still contract the disease. Would we be better off if everyone was allowed to contract the disease as a child, and stop with the vaccinations? Why or why not — in detail please?

The issues surrounding vaccines are so varied and complex, there’s much more than I can go into here. The subject deserves open discussion, and those who want to discuss it deserve more than just to be shouted at and called an anti-vaxxer. It’s not just an issue for scientists, and the rest of us just have to trust what they say. This is a topic that needs to be explained in a way everyone can understand it, and from an independent perspective. Everyone needs to make their own decisions.

The same rules apply to comments on this post as others. In general everything goes, except spam or attempts to intimidate others. This is especially true when it involves repetition.

A Seed for Change

Starting with the economic crisis of 2007-2008, Alex Ikonomidis wrote, produced, directed, shot and edited the film A Seed for Change. In total the film represents 7 years of work. It’s a very good representation of the seed movement of the time, with it’s passions and motivations. It includes interviews with some of Europe’s most important figures.

Alex has now released the film for everyone to view. On his website linked to above is the film with subtitles in 4 different languages; Greek, English, French and Arabic.

I hope readers of this blog will consider making a donation on his website.