As I close my eyes and drift away to a land where there is love, health, peace and blessings. I wanted to take the time to think and reflect.
I thought about nature and the gifts of nature. The natural resources humans utilize as well as the land that are conserved. Without a doubt nature / natural resources should not be unappreciated by humans, because even if we did - for those who believe in God / higher source / being, would probably also think that, the un-appreciation of nature is also a negation of God. Regardless of the answer - for the actual negation or appreciation to happen, human thought / actions / attempts are required first. Meaning that the very gifts are for human appreciation and survival. Nature goes hand in hand with humans, humanity. This is what came to mind after I took the time to watch the democratic debate and questions surrounding climate change, which can even go back to the psychological nature vs. nurture debates, that continue in their cyclical fashion.
I wondered how we could have conversations or thoughts without think through the dichotomous lens. Especially relating these thoughts to put forth: everything is connected. Nature and humans. So even if political parties or candidates are split, placing more focus on one and not the other, the candidate has already failed. Failed to recognized the importance of connectionism. These subtle yet profound details are important. They have the ability to shape the future. However, maybe it's not about dichotomy, negation or appreciation? Maybe it is more about simply changing our words / terms? For instance: How could we still come to think about climate change, whilst still recognizing the important gifts of nature for our pleasures and also survival? Because it is not just about fuel or energy consumptions, because if it was: we can automatically put forth natures very own way of replenishing. Through carbon dioxide intake from the very gifts of nature - trees. So maybe it's more about linking the care and protection of our lands "climate change" with renewal and replenishment?
To further understand my thoughts we can take the current example of Venezuela. Where even in a natural resource rich nation, people have been made to suffer because of politics. I would further argue to say - a political construction. We could think about how investments in a country labelled as developing could have assisted not only the climate / lands, but also conservations, protections, and the use of their natural resources. Allowing the Venezuelan people to flourish. But here we can also think about the political construction of the Venezuelan people who were made to suffer, an economy invaded to limit and control Venezuelan progress.
We can take the example of Venezuela and relate this to the current political debates in the USA.The Democratic debate. To further understand and emphasize that nature, i.e: American lands go hand in hand with nurture, i.e: humans. Nature / land is needed for human habitats and survival in the form of economic progress and success. Maybe the debate is not about who cares more or less about climate change, but rather recognizing how each element is connected and inter-related.
My thoughts to share with love & kindness! :)
Notes: These thoughts were originally hand-written on August 1st 2019. They are a culmination of my thoughts as well as thinking about the questions with regards to climate change during the current 2019 democratic debates. Image 1 - Web Link