My WMD (7th oct 2005)
My assets are a consequence of my insecurity and invest me with power. This heightened personal comfort needs protection in a competitive world. I now belong to a multifamily, multi-tribe, multi-nation and corporate body with proportionately multiple and powerful defensive and offensive capabilities.

I cannot singly defend my lifestyle; I am dependent on co-operation with 100's if not thousands of millions of people. I am not ashamed of our weapons of mass destruction or proud of my lifestyle, but as co-operation is the root of my survival and enjoyment then I will work towards a defensive stance that is not offensive to anyone, human or other being.

I cannot find peace by denying my insecure, competitive, violent and offensive nature and less so by challenging others. Peace is a woolly jumper covering blades of steel, offensive in its deception and frightening in its dogma. Removing WMDs will not bring me peace, neither is peace my goal. However by adopting more sustainably inoffensive habits/lifestyles I may slowly drop my defensive nature and a time will come when there we be no will to invest in offensive weapons. Criticising people, who are so afraid and threatened that they to have develop newer and more powerful weapons, only adds to their fear and determination to succeed in such endeavours.

I look to myself for the solution not organisations and power based alliances. The best defence is not to be organised and not to expect an organised environment. Identity in a world of diversity is the beginning of my security not acquiescence or conflict to majority rule.

It's been fashionable, at least since the 60's to be sustainable; that the fashion industry is one of the last fiddlers to join the band says much for it's integrity and long term view.

To sustain anything something has to be consumed and destroyed. So whereas in the short term something may seem durable, viable, economic or ecological, at the same time other things have their demise. Reuse leads to degradation. As all resources are finite, the more use > the shorter time to destruction.

Water is a resource in many ventures, and the fashion industry, finally, wants to get on the sustainable bandwagon to make their products more appealing to the consumer. One touted fact is that cotton takes x litres to produce y amount of cotton. The linked text is one persons use of such facts. Being a journalist, the reason for using these facts is to gain attention. They and you may think that there is some useful information in this knowledge and by following lots of green steps we can save the planet from destruction ~ this is not the case.

Consider not just water.

Water is used to grow all crops and it is a well worn fact that farming animals is highly detrimental to water quality and uses many times the amount of water that would be used to produce equally usable vegetation products. So the production of cotton has to be considered alongside, for example, the production of wool and leather.

Linen, hemp and others are touted as using much less water. These and many other plants used for fibre need little or no pesticides or fertilisers, if you believe the facts. However the rougher cellulose material from bamboo and trees use many processes involving toxic chemicals and a lots of water to process and produce artificial fibres (modal,viscose and rayon).

Synthetic fibres made most often from petroleum products are not only rife with the use of a not replaceable source, but add nothing to the biosphere. Further great pollution is created in obtaining and processing the oil, with the added concern that the plastic fibres degrade to microscopic and then nano particles that pollute almost every corner of the material world.

I have been told by a neighbour, who works at Plymouth University, testing for micro-plastic pollution in the marine environment, that in some areas of Cornwall the sand at the top of beaches can be as much as 30% plastic; particles the size of sand and smaller. Another friend working as a research fellow in Exeter University is studying plastic as it further degrades and becomes so small, nano=plastics, that it enters cells through normal osmotic pressure.

Clearly the use of plant fibres is preferable in that the waste and degraded material will completely breakdown and produce organic matter as humus and nutrition for other plant growth.

There abides the question as to which plant production uses the least water and chemicals to grow. This does not equate to the idea of sustainable, but it's practice does help to focus the mind on the unsustainability of any form of consumption.

The philosophy that there is a good, better or benign use and consumption of a resource, be it human or other animal, plant or mineral, is an excuse or reason for laws that distribute the booty of the looting of the environment.

This sort of sustainability is not related to life but the deceitful habit of exploiting those people and other animals of any opportunity to raise their conciousness to real everlasting concious life by making the controlled killing spree the thing to do ~ a sustainable fashion.

Use, Reuse and Recycle becomes a habit, destruction it's consequence.

Life to be sustainable must logically not rely on a finite, or any number of finite resources. Life cannot therefore consume and is the only enduring entity.

If you focus on this philosophy, create your own laws, you may devise a combination of ways to reduce consumption, that are uniquely yours. Maybe then you will leave enough space in your mind and your body for your soul to enjoy the presence of everlasting life.

Thought and logic are inherent in intellectual understanding. Logic can, by argument, be applied to extract facts and fiction. Facts alone cannot be used to prove the validity of matters beyond it's borders. The casual use of facts in many circumstances is delusional, if not purposefully devious. In such cases fiction may prove to hold more value.

The purpose of the above argument is that so often facts are used in arguments as if they are being used as part of an analysis to show some 'great or important' understanding. Whereas the facts as presented are only relevant to their limited derivation and are all but fiction when used otherwise. Even billions of facts, derived from myopic reductionist data, will not shed a light on immortal questions which require a holistic understanding.

The point is that the uncorrected use of miss-placed facts really only shows the weakness of the argument and it's proponents need to muddle on to spur on their frail momentum. This arises from a lack of analytical thought of all too easily assimilated data, when a need for holistic satisfaction is sought. The result is an excuse, in the use of facts, to consider an understanding has been gained and the problem at least partially addressed.

This is easily seen when facts are used to support holistic goals.

I am going to use the details as expounded in the post 'Water Footprint:' by a journalist, Should the original entry become unavailable, I am providing a copy the text.

The facts used are examples of the division of space, as in the various resources as 'water' and the need and understanding of how to exploit resources sustainably, through time indefinitely.

In the following commentary I will variously show a) the facts are trivial and therefore irrelevant to the solution. b) that there are more impressive facts, that if considered would also be trivial and c) that the argument is one of the longevity of decay.

If you have any doubts about the value of the 'Water Footprint:' article, read the next page (page 2)

Pages: 1· 2

Prompted by an invite to view a certain blog page on"Water Footprint:&quot I must first lay some basic logic/philosophy. resources are never unlimited and hence can never be sustainable as in forever available. More accurately; once something has been consumed it never recovers its original state, although it's mutated form may still be a resource.

Before I get to the water, more on the philosophical logic. A form only becomes a resource by decision of intelligence, no matter how limited that intelligence is. It is a matter of logic that only the greatest of intelligence would achieve any 'sustainable use of a resource.

The philosophy is that people want to be happy to enjoy conciousness and bodily indulgences consume and destroy their surroundings on condition they have the power to do so. Great numbers have greater power and so the availability of resources to the masses becomes a topical and political issue. Hence the regulations of sustainability.

Note these are regulations on how to use, consume and destroy weaker people and creatures, plants and elementals to provide the users with the basics of shelter and food, and more often the luxuries that enhance our ego so that we feel strong as individuals. This individualistic egotistical struggle has no room for sentiment or sustainability for any objective, ethical or moral outcome but for self-satisfaction. It is know by many names but "ART" is a general term. Politics and administration ensure the proliferation of art, by making itself, an even less important goal, the top dog. By inverting the flow of thought the basics of shelter and food are secondary to the art of political fashion.

Along way from the water, but the deep as the well maybe only pure water can be drawn by a clean bucket which in turn can only be fashioned by a clear mind.

The extraction of water is a contentious issue as many would have sole rights to its availability.

A small diversion, this time. The water of rain is not a part of the extraction argument although a) whereas it is modified by non human it is the human part that we can adjust and b) the run off from land collection, as in agriculture can and most often is polluted with various toxins. This is where the growing of cotton, the instigator of this essay, conjoins.

Space is the place to be and meditation is often touted as a means of being here. There are a number of disciplines but the fact that they can be called that implies some effort, some cause and effect.
However space has no time so no effect. Raja yoga, the act of controlling the mind can lead to an awareness but is subject to devotion. Devotion has no goal and is pure being. Vegan(ism) that has goals is a brilliant form of raja yoga; it requires constant appraisal of personal action. However trying to change another to such a discipline is to want disciples, an army to change the world. This is just politics, masquerading as a new religion of being better, like ecology and sustainability; a load of hocus pocus.

It's fine for those with a gaol, but develops karma. Devotion has no karma so devoted to your soul is just an acknowledgement of life immortal whereas a devotee of the thought is bound to the karma of the body.

Intellect like the stomach needs food and can be starved or poisoned. Some unusual foods can pass through the stomach or mind and leave little trace even though indigestible and incomprehensible. Little trace but these things can be start of a new equally unusual path.

Some times there is an attempt to digest or understand that takes so much energy, is so difficult: the body becomes sick and confused; rarely one or the other. Sometimes depression, madness and death set in.

But what dies? It is not the stomach or intellect is it?

Where's the soul that decides to eat or try new experiences, knowing the dangers, but dangers to what? Why take the risk? Are eating and thinking essential activities? Eating is definitely destructive so there can be no ultimate health from doing so. And thinking about food isn't really a part of the intellect, though fasting could be.

I can recognised a body or a being that contains a stomach to digest solids and a brain to digest experiences,but to what end: death?

And what of not death and not of the killing spree of consumption. Can the intellect be non consuming? Conciousness appears without need or direction, hence no consumption. Not being based on killing it cannot die, and as it cannot be created from something, it was not created so must simply exist.

The soul is aware of this being without boundaries and knows it cannot relate to it directly or indirectly,but what the soul may do is ease the desire for killing and free the body from the sickness of digestion.

The soul can only be happy in such a place else it cannot be a soul, for the soul is only the part that is aware of immortality and bliss. So