People, and for that matter other animals, consume specific biological compounds, plants consume minerals, water and sunlight and the sun and other heavenly bodies consume indiscriminate mass.

Consumption, from my human perspective with that intellect born of homo sapiens is clearly an unpleasant aspect. This does not mean there is no joy in the taste of food the company of people, shelter from the weather but in the need to consume other matter, intellectual, emotional, biological, and mineral is demeaning.

It matters for two reasons, first that it means I am dependent upon a finite resource, so no immortality there and secondly if I were to adhere to an ethical style and that ethics included all others then I can not be happy knowing my consumption not only puts me in direct competition with other but that they are my potential food.

To counter this inhumane activity and bring focus to that which is immortal I have to reduce my consumption before death removes the option.

The ELF trust was created, well as I thought, by and for people who wanted to be responsible for a fair share of land wherefrom and whereon they would establish methods to reduce their consumption. The problem being I am the only survivor, with the disturbing notion that my aggressive, uncompromising stance alienates all others, apart from non-human animals.

I have no problem with a person who consumes as long as they do not campaign that others should reduce theirs or share their loot. People are basically animals that consume and is it up to the individual to assess how to satisfy their desires.

I do have a problem, however when confronted by the so called eco-freaks, the planet savers, the half-hearted vegetarians, the vegans who claim to care about all animal suffering, the tree-huggers and fair trade lobby. The clue is in the plural. People often achieve greater efficiency in consuming when working together, despite the fact that it is short sighted and only serves their ethical group of choice and thereby uses the resources even quicker - so no hope that any of them will tune into an everlasting consciousness. My problem lies in being caught or addicted to the relationships I have with these individuals, it's easy to keep away from the do-gooder groups. But when the individuals are family or long term friends it is difficult to deny them.

To labour the point. If ethics has any universal credit then it must apply to all. Treating your children equally is a simple objective but not really possible to achieve. Treating all the family, all religion, all the nation, all the people, all the animals, all the biological kingdom whist we consume each other is clearly a cruel deceptive aspiration applied to children so they are less demanding and work for the good of all or better say wants of those they deem a requirement for their survival, comfort, lust and debauchery.

The best is to reduce consumption and allow others the freedom to grow. There is no point in consuming more, as charities do in supporting the homeless and hungry with shelter and food so that they can consume for longer, consume more and procreate other creatures of the same habit. The result is that people will have to exploit more resources for the ever growing population or more specifically to feed the desires of any ever increasing hopelessness of fulfilment.

Although some religions, without a complete lack of logic, claim that all will be sorted for the good at death, whilst the others will be born again into an increasingly deprived word; that does not equate to the same notion as reducing consumption. These religious people often use Jesus or Mohamed as guides to their resurrection,, or lack of whilst upping the inhumane and inhuman consumption they so vehemently lobby again - now we have a proliferation of charity workers and eco-freaks.

The religious use past guides to excuse them of earthly matters and wage war on anyone and anything that isn't of their ethics, whilst the charity and eco freaks try to save groups of people and the environment they are so dependent upon. Justifying their own lack of commitment of reduce they rest in the glory of the attention they receive from the forlorn consumers who's ability to fuck the planet quicker is in the charities workers hands and hearts. Weak hearts and hands that cannot look after themselves and increasingly depend upon the new order of so called humans to gather resources and share them out to the administrators design. Administrators Ach!

With the religious group I feel there is an ability to see beyond the earth for fulfilment, though I challenge any of their commitment, whereas for the humanists I see only their dependence upon each other as the primary goal, another sure way to screw the bio-sphere and any other resource that comes into orbit.

The few die hard religious freaks will, as they always must, perish and die in the flames and mayhem created by the blast of the thinking people when they leave Earth, aware that there's little more to take.