A ranking (1-5) for environmental protection groups

note: from this 1-5 rating for groups that are to protect the environment, the Cal EPA seems to currently be around a 3.  This current situation of several Republican states pushing back against the US EPA's stricter air/soot pollution laws seems indicative of where the US currently is in environmental protection ~2.5.

5 - holistic responsibility - takes responsibility both domestically and in responsible foreign trading/importing (like the EU’s ban intends to do, the Global Commons Sustainability Index assessment that includes "spillover" impacts or the Country Overshoot Days score, avoiding a delusional city that has crossed the carrying capacity limit). most developmended. beyond this + consider very, god-like/karmic-level responsibility (like the responsibility related news category, or the ecological baseline)

4 - domestic focus - realizes the problems mentioned in 3 below, and tackles them, taking full responsibility domestically (like the California 30X30 initiative aims for, the (less holistic, outdated) EPI was to assess, with the corresponding irresponsibility exporting its toxic waste/harm, like this for example)). starting to developmend. can have problems (such as "fortress conservation" for examples, and the key may be to find the right balance, between livelihood/extraction and conservation, for examples)

3 - good intentioned, but faulty foundation - tries to transition business with expansive goal of healthy/balanced ecosystem (or even ecosystem services) for example, but still fundamental problems and conflicting values in overly powerful, misguided Economy results in Problematic Problem Solving. typical of a liberal democrat or progressive in the US.

2 - human-centric/imbalanced - aligned with or allows business-as-usual economy but tries to protect the environment some (usually for selfish human purposes). typical of a conservative republican in the US.

1 - failing - not only domestically destructive, but also exports the destruction to foreign trade

what kind of media content do you consume?

what kind of media content do you consume?

0 - i’m in the dream world even when awake! i get high virtually all the time! (high as in not (as) real, like with abusable media such as music, games, social media, other emotionally charged doses like chatting, pornography, etc.)

1 - i get high as much as i can find time for, and occasionally real, relevant content

2 - about 50/50, i sometimes get high with it, sometimes use it for real things

3 - mostly for real things, but i like to use it for fictional, entertainment purposes too once in a while

4 - nearly exclusively practical/actionable content (to assist me in our crazy world)

5 - what’s media content?.. phone/device?.. oh, no, i’m (fortunate enough to be) living with the actual world

notes:

*fictions or facts? reality based experience/consumption with spectrum from virtual use that is unreal like a fantasy world (can be for getting high off media content too), to real use, for accurate information/knowledge of our shared reality, (can be real-world, live content like how sadhguru directs us to (some example videos here)), which seems to approximate one’s potential social contribution too)

*scale parallel to G.P.A.? it seems to be for me

environmental awareness across time and generations

awareness of the environmental impact of the dominant, modern, developed world's way of life

note: in terms of scientific methodology, this post/statement is very poor, but the (more common-sense) reflection/portrayal of the reality in focus seems to be highly accurate/obvious

in the middle, at 39 years old, there seems to be both good and bad inversed of the older generations and the younger generations in relation to (something like this graph).

for the older generations, the good is their relatively stable, less degraded environment they enjoyed, and the bad is the relative lack of awareness of what their imbalanced, unsustainable, and higher-standard-of-living-in-the-developed-world lifestyle has done to the health and sustainability of the planet.

for younger generations it is inversed, as they will have to suffer-adapt through Climate Change and a(n environmentally-)chronically ill environment. some that also enjoyed some fruits of ill, industry-scale economic activity appear as though they will have even worse problems of recovering from such addiction-like dependencies on such a misguided way of life, going from a spoiled/overly luxurious life to a more austere lifestyle, but also they have (especially assisted with this internet, that includes evolved knowledge (of best knows)) a super advanced awareness (of positive actions of how to recover from and avoid such a poor environmental condition, for example)

When an autocracy (like a king/queen ruler) is better than a democracy

*note: a plutocracy (rule by the “wealthy”) may be considered an intermediate (see “rulers” in the 4 score) to the extremes ideals of autocracy and democracy. though in today’s society, wealth seems to be largely misguided or not valuing the real best interest of the current and long-term interest of all humans (and nonhumans)  in society, one can imagine with better/appropriate notions of value/money, wealth can be much more deserved/respected by all (“wealth” like sai baba speaks of hyr). also, see associated news article category here

5- god knows (and like “divine rule”) when the people are actually very  ignorant of what is truly best for them, and especially have a false confidence in their misguided beliefs that can cause societal illness to spread even more

4-  when (some of) the people (sometimes) do know what it takes for - or when they (sometimes) behave toward - a good society, and having the leadership of (a) righteous/wise ruler(s) will be of great help toward that end

3- not as ideal as 4, but getting there (or, going toward 2?)

2- not as ideal as 1, but getting there (or, going toward 3?)

1- in the real world that will have problems, when the people are fortunately knowing (from external authority, like science for example) of what needs to be done for a healthy, uplifted, beautiful society, and actually are (enabled to (from external authority, like government for example) doing right actions such that that beauty is evident

0- in an ideal world where everybody is perfect citizens that live perfectly and there is no need for any external government as everybody is wise enough to be as a king/queen in their own world

the “how saintly test”

how saintly?

notes:

+this is how saintly, not how good or something like that. thus, it is extremely difficult for one to be rated highly

+saintly (def.) - very holy, divine, or virtuous, greatly helping others

+percentages are guesses

+can be seen with the “how wild test”

+personal example: i consider myself between a 3 and 4 (sometimes 2 (or less), sometimes even 5). if i am to get married, i imagine i'd drop to a 3 at best, and my wife may have expectations of me to be more around a 2 (or even 1).. unless😄!

+my guru, dr. narayan savant, must have been a 6 or 7

0 - pure hedonistic and always doing everything for only self gain/happiness (~5%)

1 - very self-centered and will only help others if getting something in return (10%)

2 - many people who are self-centered and sometimes help others (40%)

3 - a lot of people who have a good balance of doing good for others and for themselves too (30%)

4 - more noble, almost saintly people who we look up to (10%)

5 - the noblest, more saintly people (<5%)

6 - one who is often saintly (<1%)

7 - one who is saintly almost all the time (<.1%)

8 - one who actually lives like a saint, always doing for others, but the world is yet to recognize them in the all-saints hall of fame (<.00001%)

9 - actual saints that people have rightly recognized (<.0000001%)

10 - the handful of greatest saints ever, like jesus christ, sai baba,

General 5 point (-2 to +3) value scale guide of Science

from against to for the common need/goal of environmental sustainability

technical note: a symmetrical -3 to +3 was not used maybe to allow for the tendency of a scientist’s life outside of work as overall contributing more negatively to the common goal

using Science to:

-2 - support and even promote or help make more profit/power to industrial, over-developed activities

-1 - not necessarily (directly) helping those business activities make money, but effectively support such harmful, misguided, environmentally-chronically ill business operations

0 - neutral observer/reporter of the reality (that is being focused on, or not necessarily with regard to broader (social) dynamics / the bigger picture… but can of course be used in complement with those that do understand more holistically)

1/2 - support the needed activities (usually through evolved / (environmentally) ”woke” government, non-profits, etc.) to mitigate relatively short-term environmental harms (closer to +1).. to support long-term environmental sustainability (closer to +2)

3 - completely front-line, activist, oppositional/resistive to the dominant society, fighting against misguided industry/development that is harming environmental health & sustainability (like in this article) (and of course, such activity doesn’t need objective “Science” as justification, but another higher (subjective) power like “God” or the Universal Consciousness)

working for Amazon I ends justify means?

with my current difficult situation*, i could lie/justify to myself that i’m helping the environment by working at Amazon (a company who really does try to do what they can; what they know is right, including things that really are right/needed, like financing/supporting nature-based solutions (see pages 18 & 19), which of course has to include some protecting of the actual Amazon rainforest!), but mostly what i’m doing in my delivery of packages is supporting the continuation of excessive consumption of an ill, ecologically imbalanced, misguided society/culture 😔, god knows 🙏

*like the example of “stilldigenous” that starts with "Indigenous people (if still alive, sadly) usually have a great track record..."