Wayoot WordsHannah Quinn (425)    Hannah Quinn   Too-Write! Bigfoot on Dry Dust – Climate Change and Ecological DamagePosted Friday, May 16, 2008 (1 day 13 hours ago.) Viewed 112 times. It is predicted that by 2050, 1.4 billion people will be living under water distress. This all translates to a steep decline the in biodiversity of species, such as fresh water fish, mammals, birds, plants. These issues are serious. Although we seem to think, or hope, that it will not affect us or our lifestyles, it will. We rely on the earth for our survival, just as the birds, animals and plants do. In our busy, technological, well-fed and luxury replete lives, we tend to forget this. Everything we eat, own, wear and use comes from the earth, not to mention the air we breathe. There are naysayers everywhere. I see them on news forums, article sites, blogs and newspapers. I hear them on the radio. Some believe it is the scientists lying at worst and fudging at best just to get funding. Some believe it is in the hands of God, and not written about in the Bible so therefore doesn't exist. Some believe it is the work of scaremongers, history is replete with people declaring the end is nigh - like the cave dwelling sect in Russia who believe the world will end this month. Some believe the scientists will find a way out. Some even believe the scientists and the multinationals already have the way out but are making what profit they can in the meantime. I believe all these beliefs are either nonsense, pie-in-the-sky, ostrich head-in-the-sand, fearful, foolish or dangerous. It really does not matter if the climate change believers, whether scientist, politician or average citizen, are wrong. It does matter if they are right. If we work at reducing climate change, environmental destruction, biodiversity loss and take water saving measures, what do we have to lose? The usual answers to these questions are strong and immediate: Profits, Low Inflation, Jobs, Economic Security. Yes, possibly. But, these are no more than problems to be overcome. Profits can be earned from energy, manufacturing and farming practices that do not ruin the environment. Low inflation can be maintained by governments ensuring sensible management of the budget, regardless of how a country earns its money. Jobs can be created, adapted and developed or maintained in clean industry. Even forestry workers can be employed in maintaining the forests in a sustainable manner rather than destroying our vital rain forests. Economic security is maintained and furthered by government policy, not by destroying the planet. History shows that every great civilization has fallen, and ultimately through destroying their environment, e.g., the Maya, the Ancient Egyptians, the people of Easter Island. The monument of stone statues we know Easter Island by required all the forests to be cut down to move the stones, and irrevocably changed their environment to one which no longer sustained life. If we continue to learn nothing from history, we will repeat it. The world will still be here. There will still be fauna and flora. There might even be a few humans, but probably not. The numbers will be decimated in all species, and life will not be the same until evolution allows adaptation once again to the changed environment, and that takes eons. It does not necessarily mean that humans will be able to survive in whatever new environment results. If we don't heed the warnings, we will perish. Perhaps, for the world itself, that's not such a bad thing. I don't want to experience it, but I especially don't want my children or grandchildren to experience it it' being food shortages, water shortages and foul air. Nor do I want them experiencing the inevitable fighting/wars that will occur over dwindling resources which for a time will boost economies, but only for a short (sighted) time. Look at the deficit in the US because of war, and for what? A damaging fossil fuel. Securing oil is only delaying the inevitable and ensuring the decline of life will come more suddenly and profoundly. Are there scientists scaremongering and securing grants? Probably. Are there politicians jumping on board for populist reasons? Definitely. Should we therefore poo-poo the fact that developed world lifestyles are destroying our own habitat? Definitely not. Added to the stress the world environment is already under, including acidity and heavy metal levels rising in the oceans, the developing world outnumbers the developed world in all ways. Without sustainable methods, the decline of the environment and biodiversity will escalate exponentially. To ignore this, and to focus only on the short term, i.e. profits, elections, popularity, is to deserve what happens. In all things, the logical and sensible approach is to take the middle road: steady, certain changes with both short term and long term goals and strategies for a sustainable habitat. We are the species at ultimately most at risk. If we keep soiling and over-using our habitat, we'll be like that old Disney cartoon where Jiminy Cricket laughs at the ants preparing for the winter. Ants, the real ants, will survive but they won't be taking us in. We'll be outside on our own. But not for long. 
Permalink Comments (0) Two Powerful Strategies that can Change your LifePosted Wednesday, May 07, 2008 (9 days 22 hours ago.) Viewed 12 times. How I gave up smoking in just three weeksI was 19, smoking two packs a day and couldn't go out in the night air without a long and painful coughing fit. In fact, I shallow breathed and avoided the night air as much as possible to ward off the coughing. Not good strategy for a very social time of life, plus I belonged to a theatre group and was a dancer, so night meetings and rehearsals were mostly at night, after work. I had constant colds and frequent bronchitis. Is that what made me want to give up. No!My sisters were smokers. They are all quite a bit older than me, and I admired their 'style'. At 15, I got my first job and had a little money in my pocket. Not much. Between fares and board at home - which was quite high because I had been expelled from school and wasn't meant to 'benefit' from the experience! - I had little money. We lived a long way from Melbourne so my bus fares were also fairly high. If I remember rightly, I had about ten shillings left over (that's about $1) but it was 1965 so it went further than a dollar goes today. But, not much further. I think a pack of smokes cost about four shillings and I smoked only about one a week at that stage. I took up the habit for two reasons. One, to be 'grown up' like my big sisters, and two, out of a sense of rebellion and independence. By 19, I was turning into a breathing wreck. So, what made me want to give up? I was always an early riser. At an early age, I prided myself on being up, dressed and with my bed made before the alarm went off or anyone else was up. In fact, I loved to get up and go straight outside and walk barefoot on the earth, even in winter. We all had to go outside first thing anyway, because that's were the loo (toot, dunny, toilet <wink>) was. It was a wonderful time of day, and I always tried to be up to see the sunrise. Anyway, back to giving up smoking: I woke up one morning, half asleep still and stretched my hand out to grab a smoke and light up. Still bleary eyed, my hand landed in a very full and disgusting ashtray. Talk about a wake-up call. In that moment, I realised I was addicted and how heavily! The idea of being addicted to anything is not one I am comfortable with. It was very motivating. I hopped up, emptied the ash tray, not just the contents, but the ashtray - which was a handmade item from a local pottery gallery where I worked on weekends serving tables - an unopened carton of cigarettes, a gold lame cigarette case and matching lighter, a leather cigarette case and matching lighter (I was earning good money by then), a gold lighter and three packs of smokes into the rubbish bin and shut the lid tight. That, of course, doesn't deal with the addiction. I adopted two strategies sitting outside in the murky hour before daylight. One, I decided I wouldn't tell anyone I was giving up. No, I wasn't going to pretend or lie, but I'd seen too many people trying to give up and other smokers working hard to ensure they remained smoking or started again. Instead, when one of my friends offered me a smoke or if anyone asked me for a smoke or a light, I would say: 'No, thanks. I don't smoke' or 'Sorry, I don't have any because I don't smoke.' I didn't realise at the time what a powerful strategy this was. It was aimed at stopping others, smokers, from trying to coerce or mock me, to stop them from blowing smoke in my face or trying to tantalise me. It was amazing how it worked. Because I was very firm when I made the statement, it worked like a treat, and only one or two even bothered to offer me a smoke a second time, and I had no other problems. They even went out of their way to blow their smoke away from me. And some even said, when someone new offered me a cig, 'No, she doesn't smoke.' How about that? Another reason this strategy was so powerful is because it trained my mind to believe I was not a smoker. My subconscious really learned, firmly and quickly, that 'I don't smoke'. Every time I said, 'I don't smoke,' it reinforced it more deeply and strongly and it very quickly became fact. The second thing I did, if I did feel the craving, or the hand habit, to light up, was tell myself I can go five more minutes before I do. The next time, I would say, well if I could go five minutes, I can go ten minutes. Ten minutes became thirty minutes, then an hour, half a day, a day, a week. Before long, keeping the waiting time became more important and satisfying than the craving for a smoke. I didn't have any smokes, but I had access to them 24/7 because in those days, everyone smoked, including four of my six siblings and most of my friends. My father had only given up two years earlier after his third heart attack! Even at work, they were available through the social club, and most of my fellow workers smoked. (This was the 60s.) After three weeks I hardly even thought about having a smoke anymore. Three months after, even the smell of someone else smoking was disgusting. My boyfriend - who I later married and was ecstatic when I gave up - hated seeing anyone light up where they weren't supposed to, such as at the front of a bus because I became very outspoken and he was worried I'd get him into a fight. Fortunately, that never eventuated, but I learned to tone down my comments. Maybe you will find these strategies work for you, too. They are both very powerful, but the statement 'I don't ...' is especially powerful to both your own subconscious - where our strongest beliefs reside - and to others who want to tempt you. The time delay, even for a minute initially, is also powerful because it teaches both our body and our mind how to delay gratification and that goes a long way towards leaving an addiction, or even a bad habit, behind. I'm now using these to help me lose some extra weight I'm sick of lugging around - especially up steps! Most of my life I have said, and believed, I didn't have a sweet tooth. A few years back, around the same time I had my gall bladder removed, I past through a phase of therapy to help me overcome childhood abuse and developed a sweet tooth. At first I thought it had something to do with the operation, but now I realise it was to do with what I was dealing with in particular at the time in therapy. Since then, though, I've craved sweet things which is not good for either my dental bills or my waist line. So, I'm now saying, 'I don't like sweet things unless it is fresh fruit.' I don't want or intend to deprive myself entirely, but I am going to take control and just have the occasional treat. I already prefer to have just one or two small pieces of chocolate instead of the whole block! I'm getting more satisfaction from that than I ever did gorging the lot. A little goes a long way. It makes you take your time and relish both the taste and the sensation and the after affects of pleasure. That never happens with stuffing lots in, usually mindlessly and where you get to the bottom of the packet or the end of the bar and wonder where it all went! And delaying eating it in the first place, for five minutes, ten minutes, until tomorrow, makes it all the more delicious and satisfying. This is something I do for lunch, as well. I wait five minutes, ten minutes, 30 minutes before I stop work and eat it. Why? Because I'm teaching myself to delay gratification and be in control of my appetite rather than the other way around. It's not like I'm going to starve in a hurry or anything. And I'm eating slower; e.g. waiting five minutes before the next bite. Chewing a further ten or twenty seconds before swallowing. My body is learning not to feel so desperate and needy and how to savour my food. Time delay also allows the brain to send the full signal.
There is a dissonance between taking the last bite and knowing we are full. It
can take up to 20 minutes for the signal to occur. Imagine how much excess
eating we do in that 20 minutes from actually being full and knowing we are
full! With imagination and thought, these two strategies alone can go a very long way to changing any number of
things in your life that are doing you no good. Give them a try. What have you got to lose? Well, maybe a few excess pounds or a smoking habit - at the very least.
Permalink Comments (0) |
Archives:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
