Considerations

Humanitarianism
or humanism always defined as whte hats, emphasizes the value and consequence of human beings. And we could further attribute qualities and attributes such as reason, integrity, compassion, freedom, progress and community. And all humans are important, regardless of all the religious wars, wealth wars, and we are superior so you should be like us wars.

On the other hand in these modern times we have ecology ecologicalism, the point of which I believe is, one cannot have humanism without an environment, and thus a good humanist is a should ecologist.

However these two conventions are conflictive. Humanism is progressive and ecologicalism is conservative. Humanism would demand more and ever greater living standards in which humans live well. However humans living well breed ever more well-being babies, decreasing the viability of the ecological environment, for the sake of humanitarianism.

Humans are more important than ecology. Reversing this, the ecology is more important than humans, for first there must be an ecology before there can be humans. A degraded environment is anti-humanist. Ecologists are conservative although they don't know it.

Humanists and ecologists are conflictive and to a great extent it is a matter of class. The lower classes of course deprived of the high life and as good humanists, would want more and especially developers. Ecologists would generally be more middle class and up, having been born with more wealth and been there done that, would be more capable of doing with less, and may feel that they have had too much, where ecology means less is more ecological.

It is not difficult to define Humanism as anti-ecological wherein development provides jobs, money, health and well-being and damn the bees and rain forests, while ecologists may be branded as anti-humanist.

Traditional humanists are materialists and non-theistic, believing not in faith or religiosity but are secularist. Traditionally Indigenous peoples, who living in harmony with nature were extreme ecologists and highly spiritual, deeming nature to be spiritual in and of itself, and that human life was bound up with natural nature spirits of which emphasized their ecological means of living.

Religion it would be supposed by many is humanist but it is not. Religion as monotheist one God or doom, is anti-human or one god belief humanistic, and damnation for everyone else. In essence religion is anti-humanist, and thus most modern humanists are science secular.

Humanism would also be equated with morality and that would be right. Morality is progressive, as the absence of blanket prohibitions which would hinder progressive advancement. Morality is behavior and deportment based upon the assessment of consequence, of people or entities assessed as some degree between one or primitive, and ten as highly developed. The rich never go to jail while the poor most always do. God is golden and the devil is molten.

Ecology would be based on ethics or the conservative ethic, as regenerative states changed should not lose their regenerative properties, as the lake is not overfished to the point of fishless. Humanitarian ecologists would not overpopulate itself.

(73 of 96) Next Page