[GJM] socially equitable and ecologically sustainable Economic paradigm

Wed Jun 18 03:59:26 MDT 2008

Dear all,

Greetings for peace,

I never miss a Monbit writeup..therefore , I would like to share a definiiton of an ecologically sustainable and socially equitable development paradigm that is possible only the adoption of inter-faith commons..

(Mary please do not get the memory of crusades to influence your response on this..I would like to give a name to this pattern of responding ..as crusade sysndrome.. where men and women getting disgusted with the deeds of some priests and kings throw out all the moral commands and then get trapped in the narrations of men and women  who think they replace with another explainatory paradigm..but they never do this and keep generations in darkness)..

Please see the last portion..

**********************************************************

There are strategies that have been identified with global recognition of the need to reduce green house emissions. Even so, they get defeated as goals are set with contradicting outcomes and visions .For example, GDP calculation does not consider the impact on environment and ecological costs and thus are not therefore factors in the calculation of Gross Domestic Product. Enormous costs on environments are ignored following the conviction that all the resources are for the use and their non-utilisation is an indicator of low technological development. An ecologically sustainable habitat is not considered valuable with ecologically sustainable livelihoods. Quarterly reporting on the increase in the GDP does not factor the increase in green house gas emissions. 7th Generation Initiative in Canada with wellbeing measurement Act in an initiative for factoring the ecological costs and cost of women's work at home www.sustainwellbeing.net . They believe that
 calculation of gross domestic product must include the cost on the environment that our actions in the present have www.sustainwellbeing.net. Mike Nickerson and Joe Jordon have been campaigning for years.

Political parties continue to be inspired by short term visions and it is not quite their fault. SIMPOL is working with the voters globally for influencing the simultaneous adoption of policies. There is need to ensure more and more simultaneous actions globally for peaceful actions, decisions, choices that will contribute in collective ecological safety. Political parties need to be educated for supporting the policies that ensure protection of ecologically sustainable livelihoods and habitats. Labour League Foundation ,Sufi Trust and CEASIG as part of National Forum of Forest Workers and Forest People supporting the rights of land in their traditional habitats through deleting the impact of colonial legislations that  deprived them their rights to homestead and agriculture lands. Green parties are concerned about the ecologically safe issues but their voters are few .Most of the political parties are concerned with issues that are more appealing to
 the elite and the middle class in the immediate present.

Another major hurdle experienced in the way of getting global responses for mitigating the climate change is continued marketing of fossil fuel intensive consumption patterns, urban habitats designs, development paradigm, competitive nationalisms for seeking the markers of fossil fuel intensive lifestyles, devaluation of the ecologically sustainable agriculture consumption patterns. There exists continued political support for cultural products and processes that are inimical to national and global ecological safety. While there are measures for ecological impact/ environment impact assessments but then there markedly exists absence of concerns for addressing the root causes of ecological and man made disasters. Marginalisation of the faith based youth groups by the atheistic intelligentsia continues to be problem that needs to be addressed .They need to be brought on board 

Ecologically safe national strategy/ development paradigm

Considering the above, it is proposed that an ecologically safe national strategy/ development paradigm contains the following features:

Marketing of ecologically safe consumption ,production, leisure use patterns 
Discouraging ecologically hostile consumption and production patterns 
Promotion of neighbourhood trade and education and discouraging ecologically hostile trade and education
Ecologically sustainable agriculture
Promotion of ecologically sustainable transport Systems
Faith based measures for transformation of leisure use pattern
Promotion and protection of ecologically sustainable habitats
ecologically safe interest free and debt free finance system
Ecologically safe models of success

with warmest regards

Dr.Muhammad Mukhtar Alam

--- On Wed, 18/6/08, robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

From: robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [GJM] Fw: THE NEW ECONOMY.
To: "Discussion Forum for Global Justice" <discussion at globaljusticemovement..net>
Date: Wednesday, 18 June, 2008, 2:27 PM

Dear MR, et al,

       I think it is good that businesses are starting to take green issues
more seriously. It is a step in the right direction. Ofcourse, some of the
"green" products may not necessarily be green by strict standards.
Yet, at least businesses are slowly but surely getting the message, and
ofcourse realizing the possible profit potential.

George Monbiot the writer referred to some questionable "green"
products produced by certain Corporations as "Greenwash!" as opposed
to the word "Hogwash!". He does have a sense of humour at times.

Robert Searle.

--- On Tue, 17/6/08, mary rose <maryrose333 at att.net> wrote:

> From: mary rose <maryrose333 at att.net>
> Subject: [GJM] Fw:  THE NEW ECONOMY.
> To: FixGov at yahoogroups.com, "Discussion Forum for Global
Justice" <discussion at globaljusticemovement.net>
> Date: Tuesday, 17 June, 2008, 9:27 PM
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "robert searle" <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: <discussion at globaljusticemovement.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:01 PM
> Subject: [GJM] THE NEW ECONOMY.
> 
> 
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> >       By chance I came across a magazine entitled The
> New Economy which 
> > seems to show how capitalism could help many things
> including 
> > environmentalism. There is a wikipedia account about
> this "new" term not 
> > ofcourse to be confused with the New Economics
> Foundation ofcourse!!
> >
> >
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economy
> >
> >
> > The link to the magazine (somewhat glossy) is..
> >
> >
> >   http://www.neweconomymagazine.com/
> 
> Robert, I Googled this site, and found an interesting
> article on making oil out of bug excrement from a
> link from New Economy to the online Times.
> 
> >From The TimesJune 14, 2008
> 
> Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol
> Silicon Valley is experimenting with bacteria that have
> been genetically 
> altered to provide 'renewable petroleum'
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
> 
> Thanks a lot for this link, the mag is too glitzy for me,
> but it will 
> titillate the interest of many.
> One of the things about glitz is that it is too often
> directed toward the 
> promotion of products
> and services which belong to the era of modernity, but are
> promoted as being 
> "green," like
> the Nova town concept in Las Vegas.  The past is an era
> which we have found 
> to be filled
> with "tech items" that can't and don't
> fill the hole where soul use to 
> reside. And the result
> of too much emphasis on tech has been dissociation. Somehow
> we need to 
> integrate the
> basic qualities of life that provided us with soul with the
> emergent 
> qualities that give us
> greater power in the world so that we have balance. .
> 
> We need to seriously consider what is "appropriate
> technology" before we 
> even get to the
> design stage to ensure that it is also infused with soul as
> well as being a 
> useful tool. We
> need to consider whether robots on an assembly line are
> really producing the 
> equal of
> hand-crafted quality items created with love. Do we want
> quantity or 
> quality?  .
> 
> IMHO,
> 
> With love and in gratitude for all that you do, Robert, and
> all that we do 
> together. .
> 
> mary rose
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
>
http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net

      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net

      Messenger blocked? Want to chat? Go to http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://globaljusticemovement.net/pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20080618/48a8353b/attachment-0001.html 