This is one of the stranger articles I've read on the internet. It starts out by talking about the need for one world government to curtail ecological disaster, but then starts quoting the Bible and talking about Christ returning to establish a kingdom on earth. Although I know that more left wingers would espouse the opinions expressed in the following article than would fundamentalist sectarians on the right, I believe that the heretical teachings of the Rapture and/or Chiliasm will be precisely what lures "The Religious Right" into accepting Antichrist.
--Sean
CAN WORLD GOVERNMENT SAVE THE PLANET FROM DESTRUCTION?
A recent article in the UK’s Independent newspaper states that Global Warming has increased twice as fast as originally predicted. In the article Myles Allen, of Oxford University, said: "The danger zone is not something we're going to reach in the middle of the century; we're in it now. Each of the hottest 15 years on record has been since 1980“. http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805V.shtml Global Warming is now a fact, and not even the watered-down Kyoto Protocol, with its limited number of participating nations can save the planet from environmental destruction.
There is substantial evidence that the survival of the planet’s ability to sustain life is now threaten. Unless changes are urgently made to protect the environment, human life faces extinction. It may already be too late to prevent disaster, as the following article explains. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... B7GC91.DTL This article does not reproduce the well documented evidence on the destruction of the global environment, but rather put forward what must be done if the planet is going to sustain life.
The largest stumbling block in the prevention of any further damage to the environment is human greed, and not adhering to Biblical economic, agricultural and social laws provided to protect the environment and provide economic prosperity. Unless an international economic system based on these laws is implemented, the world’s ecosystem will no longer be able to sustain life.
WHY IT IS SO POLITICALLY DIFFICULT TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT?
Our current economic systems, whether based on capitalism or socialism, have lead to the destruction of the world’s environment. When businesses or nations compete with one another for resources out of greed and their lust for power, they emphasize reducing production costs in the pursuit of materialism, regardless of the damage that may be done to the environment. As a consequence many nations are following established industrialized powers, and rushing head-long into industrialisation and consumerism. Continued growth in materialism and demand for energy in more advanced economies only results in further depletion in non-renewable resources and higher levels of pollution.
While governments are becoming aware of the threat to the global environment, they are unwilling to make the economic and social changes needed to save the planet for political reasons. To do so would see them loose the political and financial support necessary to remain in power. The lesson here is that individual governments alone can not make the changes to save the planet – this can only happen if there is a single world government.
IS WORLD GOVERNMENT THE SOLUTION?
Is one world-wide government really what it will take to impose a new economic order? Is there any other way to prevent the exploitation of non-renewable resources by one group/nation to achieve economic advantage? Should there be a new economic order for governing worldwide commerce? Without a single world governing authority, does human life faces extinction?
The reality is this: it is politically impossible for the world’s governments to agree on measures that save the planet before it is too late. The compromised Kyoto Protocol is just one example of the failure of the international community to reach agreement before it is too late. The United Nations has failed in its many attempts to rally support. Their inability to facilitate a constructive mechanism in enforcing rules which prevent the ongoing destruction of the global environment can also be chalked up to secular political forces.
If the environment is going to be saved, a complete change is needed. There has to be a rethink on how societies are organised, and how people live their lives. Consumerism must give way to an economic system centered on the family. There has to be changes in how non-renewable resources are consumed, and how economies are managed. If the planet is going to be saved, everything must change.
Interestingly, it may be the coming collapse of the $US dollar, and the American economy which will provide the politically-motivated catalyst for the new United States of Europe to impose regulations on how the global economy is managed. The collapse of the American dollar will see the Euro emerge as the world’s reserve currency, replacing the dollar in financing world trade. See http://www.rense.com/general60/whatthed ... llapse.htm It would create an opportunity for Europe to impose a single government on the Western World, and strong enough to demand that Asian economies to make similar do meet higher environmental standards.
Of all the nations in the world, the EU Parliament has provided leadership in enforcing changes on their members to adopt limited environmental protection. Even so, the regulatory reforms imposed by the Europeans do not go far enough to save the planet. Having the new United States of Europe impose regulations to protect the environment upon the English-speaking nations is much of the individual freedom we have today will be lost. The new European Government will impose controls on how people trade and live their lives. The acceptance of a draconian government will be tolerated when the world’s survival is threatened with environmental destruction.
Will the Europeans be successful in saving the planet from destruction? It is unlikely that they can make sufficient reforms in the time we have left. No, it will not be until Jesus Christ returns to establish His Government on earth that the economic and social reforms can be made to prevent the planet from no longer being able to sustain life. This time is described in Matthew 24:21-22 “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened“.
A NEW ECONOMIC ORDER NEEDED
The only way the planet can be saved is if the entire world adopts a new economic order. The social fabric of society will need to be rebuilt around largely self-sufficient village communities, rather than large energy-consuming urban centers. An alternative economic system based on Biblical Laws and not on consummation, but sustainability.
A brief outline on some aspects of this new economic order is as follows:
Agricultural production to be based on permaculture, rather than mono-culture. A return to more labour-intensive, family-owned production units each supplying local communities. Elimination of inorganic fertisliser and chemical weed and pest control, which have all done enormous damage to soil fertility and the world’s waterways. Crop rotation and organic farm management techniques to be implemented.
Consumer products transitioned from large scale mass-production to be replaced with smaller family-run craft business. Labour to be largely employed by smaller family farms, and the service sector supporting these enterprises. Use of non-biodegradable products such as plastics restricted. The Internet used to provide communication for family-run home-based businesses.
Large scale transportation of goods and services curtailed, producing savings in resources consumed on the production and maintenance of motor vehicles, producing savings in capital and labour consumed in transportation. Where possible, the production of goods and foodstuffs to be produced locally. With the limited oil resources available, the private ownership of motor vehicles be gradually phased out, replaced with improved public transport.
Production of food to be produced naturally and consumed locally where possible. Unhealthy foodstuffs, especially those containing high levels of fats, sugars, preservatives and salts, such as modern fast foods banned. This would result in improvement in population’s health, and reduction in resources now committed to the health sector.
Reduction of the role of the service and public sectors, which have become the fastest growing in the economy, yet do little to improve the quality of life for the average person. Rather, they all too often squander vital capital and resources. In particular, much of the activities of the finance, government and legal sectors could largely be eliminated, freeing up resources to be used in improving the quality of life for many.
Ownership of agricultural land to be allocated to individual families, which would be leased in perpetuity. Land will not be able to be sold or repossessed, providing security to families, and allowing for long-term investment to improve soil fertility and productivity.
Activity in finance and banking sectors largely curtailed. Where additional capital is required to finance the production of foodstuffs or other goods, it would be invested on a profit-sharing basis, rather than being lent to acquire interest.
Oceans and waterways to be protected from pollutants and for the disposal untreated waste. Large-scale fishing operations stopped and fishing limited to sustainable coastal operations.
Non-renewable energy resources only used sparely, so there will be reserves available for future generations. Use of energy resources that contributing towards the buildup of greenhouse gases should be used on a small scale, to preserve stocks. Smaller communities to work towards self-sufficiency in meeting their energy and heating needs using local non-polluting resources.
Replace the large wasteful welfare agencies with local community-based volunteer networks to provide help and assistance for those in need. Responsibility of care for the elderly and those in need once again become that of the family, not the State.
Unless there are radical changes to the way the people of this world live their lives, the planet will not be able to support the ability for humans to exist on it, we all face disaster.
Bruce Porteous
15 February, 2005.