* 5) * * PROTECTING NATURE AGAINST HARMFUL CLIMATE CHANGE* The world is full of protests against climate change, a phenomenon that endangers life in general, with particular emphasis on the survival of humankind.
In this respect, undoubtedly, the minimum conditions of habitability for the human species are at stake. Geologically speaking, the planet Earth has always experienced climate change. Natural catastrophes, the nutation movement or the Milankovitch cycles have existed since the Earth exists. However, the basic question is not that of the existence of cataclysms, but *a)* the *frequency, the intensity and the speed with which they have been occurring* and *b)* man's increasing *inability and responsibility to nullify their disastrous effects.* To raise awareness of this cause/effect equation, it is sufficient to pay attention to phenomena such as: the exaggerated increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the consequent *greenhouse* effect; the evaporation generated, not only from storms, but, in a certain sense, contradictorily, from droughts taking place elsewhere; the progressive extinction of wildlife; the hurricanes and tornadoes; ice melting in the Arctics, the intense rainfalls; floods;, tsunamis; volcano eruptions; landslides, rising seawater levels, deforestation and so on. The impact of *the uncontrolled and unmeasured* extraction of oil and natural gas from the subsoil on the geological layers, including its Mantle and the seismic waves, is yet to be measured. For example, it is sufficient to see how the excess of groundwater consumption, through wells, has given way to the drying of lakes. - The assessment of this problem is essentially based on four poles for reference: *1st* – a political will and purpose;* 2nd* - the availability of the industrial sector, *3rd* - a supervisory instrument with imposing power, and *4th* - public support. It is well known that the greatest threat against a balanced human life *stems from man's own action*. Nothing positive will be feasible if the Nations of the world*, with particular emphasis on the more industrially developed ones *do not harmonize and agree definitively to achieve the parameters scientifically assumed as a ‘minimum’ for a well-toned human living. In this domain, the promises made by the Political Powers of the various Nations assume no value, as they are of reduced or zero effectiveness. This occurs because the Political sphere has done nothing but follow the dictates of the economic sector, which, after all, masters that one. - It is essential *that a proactive and* a *serious political will* overlaps the economic domination, through* coercive determinations, setting the sustainable limits of the dangers of various activities*, which, if ignored, would come under the action of the regulatory bodies. - If it is true that the vital movement of the society spins around Economics, the truth is that *overproduction* introduces destabilizing factors in the environmental evolution considered as a whole. The gas and smoke emissions, resulting from the use of material during a war, the industrial furnaces, the deforestation, the uncontrolled exploitation of the soil and the subsoil, the fossil fuel and petroleum, are some of the macro activities underlying the climate change and the inherent harm, so much spoken about. Why then, this anxiety for production? - From repeated promises in the opposite sense, expressed at Conferences, Covenants and Summits, the truth is that there is an increasing impact of the destructive effects of this type of activity. A set of *international supervisory bodies, politically* and *economically *independent is necessary, and empowered *to* verify and regulate the *abuses* of this harm for human survival. *6) RESPECT FOR THE LOCAL EXISTENTIAL VALUES* *(cultural, political, religious, social and others)* In the process of aligning the conditions for a sustainable human life on a planet with conditions for habitability, the *mutual and reciprocal dependence of these conditions becomes increasingly evident**, up to a point that one cannot speak of one of them without making an implicit reference to the others: *- does the deforestation process in the Amazon respect the rights of the Amerindians? - Do the "state of tension" and wars contribute or not to the land desertification, for the poverty of the local population, for the migration and the economic dependence of the victimized country? - Doesn’t the disrespect of cultural and religious statutes contribute to an armed conflict, precisely more devastating and deadly when countries and the population are economically more needy? Has or not been in the name of religions, or different sects that acts of war and barbarism have been practiced? But we must move forward in our reasoning. What does one gain with defending the supremacy of one way of thinking or that of a thought over another one? What moral principle determines that one religion or an economic system is superior or inferior to the other – and worsening of this process of reasoning when a 3rd party intervenes in the dispute? (At this point, it is assumed that the reader already understood the range and the extension of the questions, which could go on covering the other aspects dealt in this script, but it is up to him to do so). Underlying these postures there is a conductive line that stirs with gesture that stirs them. I*t is the ambition, the anxiety for conquest and territorial appropriation (the* so-called 'vital space') and *the economic dominance.* This framework of such aspirations can only be explained when a country either wants to hide the internal weaknesses of its governance or wants to enrich itself at the expense of another country or nation. What is the recipe to control this disastrous and often destroying impetus? "All human beings are equal". This means that there are no people, no nation, no community or person who holds the truth, because *Truth is* *relative.* It all depends on the state of knowledge and the gregarious context of the community to which one belongs. What is true for someone may not be so to another. The act of living has a meaning when contextualized and not idealized. That’s why the *parallel evolution of peoples *can be defended, notwithstanding the acceptance of the beneficial part of the evolution from others. What is fundamental is that you do not ‘take the cloud for Juno’ and start henceforth by dominating or neutralizing the existential vectors of other peoples. In this context, economy and religion merit particular attention. If, historically, there can be a certain understanding for the excesses committed on their behalf, today, their projection escapes the values achieved by human intelligence – all of these guided by *n *canons of coexistence, solidarity and humanism. By what right, can a State try *to impose* on another one how *to standardize its economy*? What principle determines that *one religion is superior to another*? But the truth is that, the economically developed countries and the economically fragile countries as well, based on such *non-existent principles* and* rights or on an unnamed god, *trigger wars, foment conflicts, kill populations, cause migration, destroy homes and slaughter millions of humans, by far outnumbering the victims of natural disasters. Resistance, protest and solidarity, are the only means to put an end to these atrocities. Up till when? 7) *FOSTERING* *THE KNOWLEDGE AND VALUING NATURE THROUGH SCIENTIFIC SUPREMACY.* >From what is known, the knowledge concerning our planet is very meager. See for instance: it is still to be known why the "timing" of the Tectonic plates movements, generating earthquakes and the activation of volcanoes. The bottom of the seas and oceans is yet to be explored. The impact of a meteorite can destroy the planet or make its habitability intolerable. This introduction is in the way to demonstrate that the state of contingency of the planet Earth cannot be exclusively attributed to *human* *action *and that there are *factors from nature and the universe*, somewhat external to the human will, which can weaken the planet completely, to an extent where life becomes impossible or extremely difficult as far as its existence is concerned. *But human action can shape in a positive manner this conditionality, relieving it from the fright of a dreadful cataclysm.* On the one hand, it is urgent to alert the world population to the peril itself. This requires first and foremost a proactive activity in this regard by *a)* the governments themselves. On the other hand, support must be given to *b) *NGOs truly engaged in this task. The regulatory effect of these interventions should lead the different societies and communities to adopt *hygienic* *and sanitation habits, *as factors of self-esteem and self-conservation. Unfortunately, to this date, the governmental procedure has not met this requirement, and, on the other hand, the NGOs have been antagonized, if not even neutralized in their endeavors. As has already been said, the lack of political will from the government, comes from the fact that they are *conditioned by economic forces.* As such, the wish to alter the course of the danger, only goes till the economic interest consents in it, which practically has been confined to vain promises that are generally unfulfilled. This political attitude is contagious and therefore gets widespread to other sectors of the human activity as well*. Promises are there, but not to be fulfilled.* The course that the economic competition between the economically developed countries has taken, seems misfitted to face humanity and the planet through the prism of the vectors that determine their vital existence. In turn, the less-developed countries have not yet been capable to be autonomous in order to be the owners of their production, which remains based on the parameters coordinated by the major economies. However, it is a fact that that investment is going on for scientific research, and honor should be recognized to the researchers who, in the beat of time, within the possibilities available, are responding to the multiplicity of the problems that afflict the living creatures in this world. *But there is still much, very much, to be investigated.* But all depends on the *investment *for scientific research, but this has not been expressive in view of the magnitude of the existing problems and considering the volume of matters that still have to be investigated, *for the preservation of Nature, to feed humankind and generate conditions of habitability.* Without jeopardizing the space exploration, it would be of total interest to explore the bottom of the seas for food purposes and other uses; also the interior of the Earth; to preview earthquakes; to control the atmospheric conditions, in order to solve, among other dangers, that of the “greenhouse effect"; to generate artificial rain when necessary, and why not, to ward off the peril of any meteorite shock; to control the effects of interplanetary and solar radiations on earth. These are some aspects and certainly others do exist for science to open the field of action and clearance for the good of humanity. Scientific research in all fields of human activity is extremely mandatory and the priority of priorities. …………………………………………………. *From Ethics to Solidarity - From Selfishness to the act of Sharing * *THE FOUR MARKERS THAT CAN SET* *THE* *DIFFERENCE AND ACTIVATE THE SEVEN CONDITIONS* Every catastrophic event is followed by a campaign of solidarity. Although not adequate, the context reminds us of the act of sending “flesh to the cannon” and deaths in the war, with the simultaneous construction of hospital tents to care for the wounded! The same should be said of the recent pro-migrant campaign, with particular emphasis on those fleeing from their country in search of better living conditions, after their countries were buffeted and destroyed by conflicts and wars caused by those who took the initiative and sometimes continue to cherish the continuation of these disputes! There *are four markers* - 3 of a positive nature and 1 negative - that can avoid this mean craving for "homo homini lupus" and activate the seven conditions outlined above. Of course, this assessment will start not from a zero mark, but from the current conditions in which characterize the world. :::###::: *(ETHICS)*: * It is basic for anyone to respect human life and nature. If so, destroying to rebuild is unethical.* For this marker to be relevant, it is essential that its agent stud his actions with the values which underlie them. These values focus on ethics. Well! The world is made up of sovereign States. Whatever be the circumstances, nothing can legitimize a country, meddling in the internal affairs of the other and even less so, when the former seeks to change the latter’s political and economic regime, making use of hostilities, violent means such as war or of economic nature such as blockade or economic sanctions. The least that can be said of this type of action is that it contradicts ethics. This assessment is particularly relevant at a* political level, *since it is from this sphere that aggressive actions and the assumptions that underpin them are based. The natural right to human coexistence cannot legitimize actions that contain the ingredient for the destruction of its species. War is therefore and by nature an act contrary to ethics and is particularly reprehensible when moved by selfish interests of *ethnic or religious extraction, or when founded based on economic superiority or intention of mere territorial occupation. * The same can be said in the case of economic blockades, which only contribute to a heavier burden of needs and suffering for the community, submitted to this measure. *(SOLIDARITY)*: Solidarity is not charity. The latter presupposes a feeling of superiority with relation to the receiver. The former functions on an equality basis – the donor and the receiver. Dealing in solidarity, the one who gives incorporates the position of the one who receives, in a soulish operation in which the donor positions himself as a receiver. In this paradigm, the act of solidarity, particularly at the political level, assumes a posture of continuity, ethically founded, covering all the situations that demand this attitude. This understanding undoes the mask when, under the appearance of "fostering goodness” cords are being weaved and foundations laid that cancel the effects of solidarity. In simpler terms, it would be the case of 'giving with one hand and taking away with the other'. In other cases, 'solidarity' is carried out with aggression, under the allegation that humanitarian values, democracy or others of a different nature are, as such, defended. These are the cases in which the ethics of the authors of these exploits is marked by canons of iniquity and falsehood. A world, where solidarity among communities and nations comes into existence, is definitely a world where it may be worth living. *(SELFISHNESS)*: Much of human history has been marked by acts involving individualistic voluntarism. The reflex of this posture is revealed in the selfishness that marks the behavior of most of the leaders of many countries or communities. These responsible people, through the public policies and directives which they work out, act as if their will is the only one that merits existence or think that others must be in a permanent relationship of dependence with relation to their designs. All phenomena of exploitation or conflict arise from this ego centrist inspiration. Thus characterized, selfishness presupposes the existential subordination of all other States and communities to the interests of the commanding country. *Up to what extent can a country demand the defense of *its interests in *another* *(country)?* The answer is simple: As far as this defense respects the *sovereignty of this country,* it is guided by the nuance of international law and the basic principles of communal coexistence. If this is not the case, the healthy coexistence between countries will be reduced to a mere chimera, generating imbalances in the mutual relational treatment, with the risk of slipping into the fringe of conflict – a situation that, unfortunately, occurs even today. *(SHARING*) ‘Sharing and not sanctioning’ - will have to be the motto of the inhabitants of Planet Earth, which is divided into Nations. As already mentioned, the world presents us with two macroeconomic systems – capitalism and socialism, *with their respective nuances, which the countries, through their political institutions, adopt, for different motivations, in accordance with the demands of the peoples and communities that compose them.* The fact of the fundamentals of these two systems being distinct, does not legitimize any attempt to eliminate or dominate the other (system). After all, what is the interest of one nation in changing the economic political system in force in another? In the name of what ethical principle can this intervention be allowed, which ultimately destabilizes the existing minimum balance, when there is no measure to ensure the supremacy of one system over the other? Sharing is not imposition. Sharing implies the collaboration between the donor and the receiver. This eventual interaction does not invalidate the absorption, by any of the parties, of the attributes or values held valid from the adverse system. What should not exist is a field for invented motivations, since the reason for sharing is based precisely on the material and immaterial basis that constitute the acquis of its active agent and on the lack of those same assets by the passive agent. In this respect, it is pure fantasy to believe that a country can share or contribute to the defense of human rights when it ostensibly disrespects those rights in its own domain or that can contribute for peace by fomenting war or sustain a permanent state of tension. ((((((((()))))))))) *Conclusion:* *At this point the reader is invited to verify the eventual compatibility between what is above said and the surrounding reality.* We are in the year 2022. So far, countless summits, conferences, meetings, agreements, seminars and other meetings have taken place, to enable solutions to make Planet Earth more dignified to live in, presently and for the future. Books, scientific articles, written opinion and theses fill the libraries and journalistic tableaux and bookstores. Recommendations from international bodies, programs of specialized bodies and promises from political leaders grasp the trust of the world's inhabitants. Undoubtedly something has been done, but the mere observation of the daily reality that one lives no longer *whispers to us, but tells us,* loud* and clear, *that *almost everything is yet to be done.* It is uncomfortable to accept what has been said above, particularly by countries and government leaders, as the big responsible ones for the policies that are being followed, with results that are more than evident and felt. And the most serious thing is that there's no *plan B* to talk about! For a *real* *humanization of the political decision-making,* *based on *the above-mentioned composite *conditioning, supported *by the *coordinates therein referred,* *is the path that can be followed. * *It's worth a try. * Lisbon – 30th/Jan/2022. António Bernardo Colaço (Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice - Portugal) (Part 2 - the end) -- normetica.blogspot.com