World Vision, no surprise there, i gave up on them a few years ago. They are to charity as the Rothchilds are to a savings account.

I had grown very weary and tired myself. I am sick with multiple health issues I don’t understand. God pushes me to continue with my research to heal myself without the poisoned medicines man has created that only bring death more quickly. Many men respect not what God created, provided and instilled in them. They no longer see or believe there is a God or understand God’s wrath. Man is going to learn much about God’s wrath.

Prayer changes things. I pray for the destruction of evil upon the Earth and in the man. I seek no disaster of many, only upon the men who breed evil for personal gain. Secret societies and evil leaders of governments are made up of many who rape and torture all of God’s goodness. Evil men will come to know their intentionally driven sins against the Earth and humanity are coming to an end they blindly created themselves. Men cannot breed evil without evil destroying them. What men have done will come back and be done unto them to their violent ends.

I’m no one important among us all, just a child of God who has found
her purpose for being here. I asked many times, through many difficult years since I was young, why am I here, what is my purpose. I now see I am not to question, just know that I am where I’m supposed to be. I had often felt lonely at points in my life, but there came a moment when I knew I was meant to be silent so that I could hear God’s Word to me.

You have provided this informative, practical and God-approved website that speaks what God feels, and I am here to say God’s Word will once again be put into print. God rules, God rocks, God wins!

http://southwestfarmpress.com/news/monsanto-scholarship-program-0331/

Hello WV
Its come to my attention that WV has brokered a relationship with chemical company Monsanto (infamous as the source of Agent Orange)
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/agentorange032102.cfm
:

‘Over a period of several years Monsanto, a multi-billion dollar transnational corporation (TNC), has worked very hard to build its image as a champion of the poor. To legitimize this image it is engaged in a high profile effort through giving grants to some established NGOs such as the World Vision’
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/monsanto-and-its-philanthropy/#comment-45313

Has World Vision no idea of what Monsanto is? You can begin here:
‘Reality Check

GTM (Gaming The Market) gives a short list of grievances against Monsanto5 :

1. 1917 US government suit against Monsanto over the safety of saccharin;
2. 1965-1972 UK landfill illegal toxic waste dumping;
3. Agent Orange chemical warfare;
4. 1979 dioxin chemical spill Kemner v. Monsanto longest civil jury trial in U.S. history;
5. Responsible for 56 contaminated Superfund sites;
6. Anniston, Alabama mercury and PCB-laden waste discharged into local creeks over 40 years;
7. Terminator seeds that lead to world food shortages, poverty, and death;
8. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone Posilac (rBST) (rBGH);
9. Using coercive tactics to monopolize world markets;
10. Pursuing 500 cases annually against customers for “seed fraud”;
11. Andhra Pradesh Government vs. Monsanto on India seed price fixing;
12. US Department of Justice and US Securities and Exchange Commission criminal and civil charges for international bribing;
13. False advertising for “biodegradable” Roundup weed killer;
14. India child labor abuse in the manufacture of cotton-seeds;
15. Farmers suicides in India;7
16. Corporate tax evasion at Sauget, Illinois facility;
17. Campaign against dairies which do not inject bovine growth hormone from advertising.’
(ditto)

Does World Vision consort with companies that behave as execrably as Monsanto has? Just to gain a few charitable dollars?
What does Tim Costello think of this association? Do india’s farmer suicides not concern him

regards
Brian S

Humans are prone to the same excesses. Because humans require many times more resources to populate, we tend to upset the whole ecosystem of the planet. Our use and demand of energy to amplify our rather puny physical capacities, leads to massive excesses. Add to this ways of life (primarily in the West but not moving East and South) with consumption = freedom; we find endless war and total eco-destruction.

This is all exaserbated by our growing population. The convergence of energy consumption, population explosions, and climate change create a perfect storm of collapse. It’s just impossible to imagine that endless uneconomic growth can be sustained much longer. What has kept us from the brink is we do reduce our consumptive habits – as we are now with the depressive economy and we did in the 70s with the peaking of oil reserves and availability. These reductions have merely postponed the inevitable.

Population is important because the sheer numbers of humans explodes the problem. Our non-human and human systems are incapable of adjusting in ways that one good describe as a quality of living.

Instead he goes after those who would claim it as one of several central issues.

In other words, he never mentions the arguments behind over-population.

Many (most) species go through times of overpopulations. Humans are no different. The sheer numbers speak for themselves that there has been an expotential growth in the human population world-wide.

What does that mean to deforestation, to stripping the earth of minerals and energy sources, to sprawl that has eliminated open space at alarming rates; at water (rivers, streams, and lakes) populution.

When you take the issue of energy needs and multiply that over population size the problem is unavoidable.

Talking about “environmentalists” as if population is an “environmentalists” problem not a “real” problem” is much the same as the Bush admin did (and others are doing) by saying that global warming is an “environmentalists story to derail the American way of life”.

Whether one is being critical or not in either of those case, Michael Barker, brings nothing to “another” side of the argument. “Uncritical” is the faux argument of someone without an argument.

by Michael Barker

(Swans – May 4, 2009) In March 2008, Sustainable Population Australia celebrated their 20th anniversary by organizing a two-day conference titled “Population, Peak Oil, Climate Change: their impact on the Millennium Development Goals.” For most concerned citizens it is commonsensical that all three of the issues examined at this conference — population, peak oil, and climate change — are intimately linked: however, as I demonstrated within a recent Monthly Review Zine article, the longstanding focus on the population question by leading environmentalists is severely problematic.

To summarize my argument: simply put the modern-day birth of the environmental movement in the United States (and elsewhere) evolved in large part from the success of an increasingly powerful population control movement. With massive financial and technical support from ostensibly progressive liberal philanthropists, like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, by the late 1950s the population issue was adopted by the military-industrial complex, creating what has been referred to as the population-national security theory, a dubious theory that Professor Eric Ross notes, causally linked “overpopulation, resource exhaustion, hunger, political instability, communist insurrection, and danger to vital American interests.” Here it is noteworthy that these same liberal philanthropists also played a key role in promoting the population control movements’ predecessor; that is, eugenics.

The military’s and public’s fixation with overpopulation was helped along by influential books like Warren Thompson classic Population and Peace (1946), while other key works include Fairfield Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet (1948), which along with William Vogt’s book from the same year, Road to Survival, were — according to a 1973 editorial in The New York Times — largely responsible for the revival of the Malthusianism within the conservation movement. Not surprisingly, the latter two authors were intimately linked to other Rockefeller projects, as Osborn founded the Conservation Foundation in 1948, and Resources for the Future in 1952, while Vogt joined the Foundation in 1962 as their secretary. In addition, in 1952, Osborn’s cousin, Frederick Osborn, founded the Population Council — a Ford and Rockefeller Foundations-funded group that perhaps did the most to put the population issue on the public and political agenda. (See “The Philanthropic Roots of Corporate Environmentalism.”)

Also active during this period of history was the population activist and businessman Hugh Moore, who in 1954 published a widely dispersed pamphlet called The Population Bomb. Consequently, it is little wonder that the ideas presenting in Paul Ehrlich’s best-selling book The Population Bomb (Sierra Club, 1968) drew heavily upon the Malthusianism ideas already presented by America’s leading population-control advocates. The importance of Ehrlich’s work in adversely influencing the environmental movement has been highlighted by leading feminist writer Betsy Hartmann, who considers Ehrlich to be the scientist most responsible for “populariz[ing] the [false] belief that overpopulation is the main cause of the environmental crisis.”

This brings us back to Sustainable Population Australia (SPA), a group that was formed in 1988 — and formerly known as Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population Australia — “by people who felt that the issue of population numbers was overlooked, or regarded as too contentious, by many of those striving to preserve Australia’s ecological heritage.” Despite the long-term support that the population movement has received from the mainstream media and philanthropic elites, with no hint of irony Sustainable Population Australia argue that: “The vested interests of the population-growth lobby — which has billions of dollars invested in real estate and development projects — were a taboo subject for the media; yet anyone who argued against this lobby was liable to be accused of being part of (or a stooge for) some unspecified rightwing conspiracy!” This statement merely serves to illustrate how misunderstood the population question is.

As might be expected, the activities of Sustainable Population Australia are intimately enmeshed with the more conservative parts of the environmental movement, as SPA’s current president, John Coulter, presently serves a Council member of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). Moreover, this link is strengthened through the presence of the ACF’s president, Professor Ian Lowe, on Sustainable Population Australia’s board of patrons, along with Frank Fenner, who served as the ACF’s vice president from 1971 until 1973. Similarly two of their five-person strong executive committee include Gordon Hocking, who has served as the president of the Sydney Branch of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Paddy Weaver, who has served three terms on the Western Australia Conservation Council executive, and as a convenor of Environment 2000.

Finally, another patron of Sustainable Population Australia’s work who ranks among Australia’s most influential environmental writers is Professor Tim Flannery, who wrote the recent bestselling book The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change (Text Publishing, 2005). Perhaps his link to the “population crowd” is understandable though, especially considering that Clive Hamilton’s critique of his book, which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald in August 2006, noted that WWF-Australia’s president Robert Purves “has drawn Tim Flannery into the orbit of conservative environmentalism by funding the preparation of Flannery’s book on climate change, The Weather Makers.” Hamilton adds that “Flannery’s book … sends the sort of message the Government wants us to hear”; as Hamilton correctly observes that “Flannery’s ‘firm belief’ that we can be saved only if consumers take the initiative is one he shares with the ideologues of the right-wing think tanks who argue that environmental problems should be left to the unfettered market.”

Yet the insidious nature of the population issue with regards to environmental politics goes far beyond the likes of mainstream voices like Professor Lowe and Professor Flannery, as even Hamilton himself has leant his support to Sustainable Population Australia’s work: thus at the group’s March 2008 conference, Hamilton gave his “after dinner speech,” while the conferences keynote speech was given by Professor John Guillebaud — a key British-based population control advocate who sits alongside Paul Ehrlich and Jane Goodall on the board of patrons of a “leading think tank in the UK concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment” known as Optimum Population Trust. (1)

The uncritical emphasis placed on the population issue is obviously highly problematic, but it is a predicament that is almost understandable given that to date so few researchers have questioned the detrimental influence of liberal philanthropy over the evolution of the environmental movement. This situation needs to change, and change it can; concerned citizens and environmentalists must begin to challenge the perverse logic of the population advocates, and offer alternative solutions to the climate crisis that deal with the real structural roots of inequality by challenging the legitimacy of capitalism itself, not people’s right to procreate.

Notes

1. For criticisms of Jane Goodall’s military connections see “Jane Goodall’s Elite Monkey Business,” and for further details about her population control work in Africa see “When Environmentalists Legitimize Plunder.” (back)

Undoubtedly the urban dweller has supported the creation of this agricultural dilemma and environmental destruction due to lack of education and consequently lack of conscious consumption. Here in Europe consumers seem to be more conscious than their fellows in the US. But as you certainly know, Monsanto is an influential monopolist and has so far enjoyed legal and “scientific” support of the US governments, “The USA is world leader in biotechnology – and will keep it that way.” I hope that the Americans will break out of the destructive grip of this monopoly pretending to do green science for feeding human beings. Small groups here and there can enhance the consciousness of the consumer through private initiatives. Jeff, I know it is not that easy to struggle against a giant with governmental support. I would be the last one to play your bitterness down.

Keep an eye on Mr. Correa… I don’t think he is quite as “progressive” as he has attempted to seem.

Last week the German minister of agriculture has forbidden the cultivation of genetically modified maize and she was criticized for that. She had to justify her regulation at Brussels, the “capital” of the European Union. Some disciples of Monsanto also lamented over endangering the “green genetic research”. What green research? A highly risky play with unpredictable consequences.