Why Is It Actually Not Our Responsibility?

“If you could correlate the raising media attention to the whole climate change issue and the success actually getting projects, wind-farm projects and other projects on the ground actually built, I think they are absolute going in totally different direction. Which is completely bizarre.”

Piers Guy

Most do not care about the ecocide as it does not fully affect them yet. It is not painful, neither creates any significant problems for the modern human existence to continue. And there is environmental scepticism which claims and proves that no destruction is taking place. And if it does, it is not as significant as it looks.

When the ecocide shows its full (or partial) potential and strength humans will then start to care. Not sooner. The apathy and ignorance are supported by the civilization/society/system itself. Cannot blame it, it is only ensuring its own continuity. Anyone/anything would do the same. A natural thing and very hard to change; especially inside yourself; the genetic code. That is why it is convenient to ‘go out’ (to the internet, most likely) and try to change it in others. Without actually changing anything, not yourself not others. Only one (at a time; first things first rule) is possible. And in a specific order.

One of main and foremost issues is simple: the ecocide does not threaten anybody who is alive today. It will threaten (one of the) future generations and their wealth, comfort/luxury, convenience, and other human concepts, but not the mere survival. Therefore any real solution will not be understood, fully felt just like hunger or thirst would. The present state of the ecocide simply does not create the same need/feeling as (long term) hunger/thirst does. And because of that there is no adequate response; ecology. When it comes to the destruction of Nature there is no capital punishment; only jail time with humane conditions, there are fines to be paid by virtual money, etc. Real Ecology however does work; one can have a broken heart every time he/she sees a devastated forest. A knot in the stomach when seeing the torture and killing of animals (especially wild ones), etc. One feels real love when walking in the forests. That is all there is and none of it will stop the ecocide.

If we are talking about pain, constant pain can be a very good ‘change starter’. The ecocide did not reach a painful state, a state of constant pain. It must be (become) global as many can simply migrate from the environmentally devastated areas once they reach extreme levels. The ecocide will not be completed (reach the state of constant pain and suffering) in the life time of all humans living today.

This is not a discussion or presentation about which is the most beautiful colour, what is the best political system or how much should be the minimum wage. This is about a fact; bigger and stronger then all humans together (including all their personal opinions). This is the fact of Nature; of water, air, and soil. However modern humans have only one fact, one need; to continue their existence. Therefore the fact of Nature (water, air, and soil) is an alternative and not mandatory. This fact will be only valid in the future, therefore it is not a fact as its validity is not present today. The fact of a fire being able to burn you is not recognized when there are only sparks flying around or when you are collecting fire wood.

Does not make sense? It is not right/true? Not a problem. Nobody living today will pay the price of taking part in destroying Nature, so it is fine. Nobody will feel the impact; it will increase and humans will adapt. And even if they do not, it is not a problem for humans “It’s never that bad that it couldn’t be worse!” At the end (possibly just before the demise of humans) it will be only the biodiversity/wilderness that will be destroyed and not humans and their ability to continue their existence.

Real Ecology is not actually ‘predicting’ things that will happen in the distant future. No one can see into the future and that makes ‘predicting’ impossible. The time when the ecocide will reach its end (the wildlife and biodiversity exterminated) is irrelevant. It is what you can do today: non-contribution and inner change. That includes the shape/size of the destruction. None of the Real Ecologist living today will live to see it happen. Neither popular environmentalist or environmental sceptics.

A happy ending or an illusion of one, they both will only last only until you die. No matter if you go to heaven/hell or not. The same with actions; the results might last forever (or until the planet dies for a different reason) but one can only enjoy it until they die. No further. The full extent of your actions can be witnessed only if you live forever and actually have to face something that only your grand, grand, grand children would. A happy ending and to ‘save’ something (at least) for as long as possible are human issues: popular environmentalism. The biodiversity/wilderness and of course Nature does not think that way. They do not think at all. Someone else has to think for them and that logic is: they should live unharmed by humans as long as possible; as long as Nature decided for them. Die naturally within the boundaries of Nature (in some cases killed by humans for food) and within the Laws of Nature.

Real Ecology realizes that it is only empty talk and empty wishes. The ecocide will not stop and if it will one day, no matter how much biodiversity/wilderness will be destroyed: 1) it will be destroyed, gone forever, 2) it will be painful (one can only think about the pain now as all Real Ecologists living today will be dead and not able to feel anything) to see and realize.

“The issue is not how much we destroy. The issue is that we do!”

The problem is the result of human evolution, the need to destroy. Today the main goal is to ensure the overpopulated world would function. And last, but not least, the ability to ignore the destruction, to doubt it (a.k.a. environmental scepticism) and create and maintain the illusion of ‘saving’ Nature (popular environmentalism).

I.H.T. it is fine to destroy as long as it is moderate. Reversible. Areas are not ‘saved’ for good, they are ‘saved’ for the present simply because it is impossible to save them from future destruction. If there will be a need for space, comfort/luxury, convenience or financial profit they will be destroyed. With no problem or remorse. That is the issue and problem of tomorrow though.

Everybody I talk to, from the highly intelligent to plain stupid, all say the same about ecology “It’s not an issue, yet. At the moment.” or “Global warming is a hoax.” And if, it is not an actual (burning) issue. “The next generations will have to sort it out, not us.” They believe and hope that they will be able to do it; the amount of new technology will surely help them. They also say that the small things that they do, do not contribute to the overall damage. The principle of billions of small contributions making one big one does not apply here. I do not care about being the stupid one, as I will not do these things that they are more than happy to do without any remorse. No matter how harmless and small.

An individual is not hurting the planet, the civilization/society/system is. The civilization/society/system consists of individuals. My non-contribution will not save anything, but I will stick with it no matter what. Regardless of how long before the outcome of the ecocide will be felt.

“The only condition where whales will not be hunted ever again is when they don’t exist anymore.”

Who wants to read about the inevitable? The ecocide that is caused by human existence itself? Nobody. The importance of such a thought (or claim) is irrelevant compared to its popularity. Or truth behind it. The extermination of biodiversity/wilderness (including the change of climate) will not make human existence impossible. That is what matters most. You cannot point out, convince others that the ecocide is happening if humans are stupid and ignorant. Logic. You can try at best, however that is environmentalism, popular environmentalism operating within set barriers and rules.

Nobody that lives today will be fully affected by the outcome of the ecocide. Humanity will adapt. Today’s generation will not feel the impact of climate change. And the new generations will not remember the old state of things. They will get used to what is happening currently. It is as simple as that. Especially when there are a lot of things more important than ecology. The same applies to war or starving. If a generation did not witness it, it will not remember it.

The most significant, most important aspect is simple: the ecocide itself will not occur fully or reach a size that would be constantly painful and highly inconvenient in the life time of all humans that exist today. Therefore it is a theoretical and not an actual (practical) issue. “There’s still time to stop or reverse it!” Not the ecocide itself but the inconvenient; to prepare humanity to exist in the future no matter what the outcome of the ecocide. “Let’s invent as many things as possible that would make life easy and nice while Nature will be destroyed…”

“How can an environmental catastrophe actually happen?” Wrong question. “When will an environmental collapse happen?” is the right question. The answer is simple: it will not happen in the lifetime of the humans living today and therefore it is not a problem. There will none that will or could exterminate the human race. That fact (prediction really) makes it uninteresting. The environmental issues might itch, even hurt a little but there are plenty of painkillers available (a massive and profitable business) and constantly used: virtual reality, denial, stupidity, blindness, etc. Therefore making it irrelevant.

If a collapse would happen tomorrow and it would threaten business interests, comfort/luxury, convenience and it would be an issue (let us assume that it would o’t affect human existence; not exterminate the species). But it is not and will not be in the near future. Climate change? Humans will turn up the air conditioning. Flooded costal areas? Humans will move inland! Endangered species? The last remaining specimens will be moved to a zoological garden. Simple as that.

“I have been in many countries and have seen massive amounts of forests.” Or “I don’t think that humans are capable of destroying this planet.” Both are excuses of humans to be humans, to continue whatever they doing (including the ignoring the difference between a forest and a plantation). The damage is not that visible (varies from country to country) when you live (as most do) in the city. It comes down to a simple math: 1) the majority are not directly destroying Nature and 2) they do not feel the destruction yet. If we are using the example of deforestation one can actually count the amount of humans doing it (loggers) and the ones benefiting from it, those directly responsible. These two will never say the first two sentences. The first group “I have a family that I need to feed.” And the other will hire PR to smoothly sweet talk them out of any responsibility. They use green-washing and some fancy label (good forest management). Problem solved.

Everybody wants to have everything: comfort/luxury, convenience, money, house, car, etc. They do not need to deserve or earn it (the life on debt*), they do not need to wait and most importantly humans do not have any responsibilities. Less fortunate humans only need to migrate to get these. And through globalization (modern day economy) Nature will pay the price. Luckily for humans the ‘payback’ will not happen in their lifetime.

Humans are used to doing what they want and getting away with it. There was more and there is still more available. It feels like it could go on forever; at least until everybody alive today is dead.

“For how long?” Is this question in terms of the ecocide, how long can Nature take it? Or is it the question of fear and doubt as humans want the same wasting, comfort/luxury, convenience (and even more) to be available for their children and grandchildren? Was the idea of ‘sustainable development/resources’ invented to ‘save’ Nature or stretch modern human existence as far as possible?

Let us not forget the ‘life’ on credit, where humans exist on credit and debt. There is too many cars, too much food. “Buy now, pay later!” Humans will only stop when there is nothing left (the attempt to save much for future generations is already happening to no avail) or with a sudden and radical change (probably caused by Nature) and brutal force to keep it that way.

Humans implicitly believe in their superiority and practise their invincibility “The nature of fresh water is that it cannot disappear. It can be extracted from salt water. Air can be created or filtered. There is enough soil to keep humanity alive.” Thus these things being destroyed is not an issue. Even and especially when the argument (fact) is not about the possibility/impossibility of destroying them, but their mistreatment and humanity’s impossibility to survive without them. The same goes about a life without biodiversity. “It’s possible!” I.H.T. only; existence and not life. In terms of Real Ecology the point is different “What kind of planet would that be? What kind of a life?”

The invincibility will come into the foreground once these become a problem. Real Ecology realizes that it will happen when all of who live today (and are convinced about their superiority) are dead. The problem will be handed down to the next generations.


Humans do not want harshness, pain or (especially) death. Or other unpopular things like the loss of comfort/luxury and convenience as a solution. For them it is actually a good thing that: 1) the outcomes (problems) of Nature’s destruction will be fully felt in the distant future, 2) nobody is directly responsible, 3) there is plenty of water, air, and soil left, and 4) they can continue what they are doing. With all these points there is no need for death, pain, and harshness.

It started long before the ‘it’s an important book’ phrase. “What does?” The understanding that no one is directly responsible for the ecocide, nobody is directly destroying (all of) Nature. Many would say that a complete and full analysis, a professional work/study would have to be done to back this (or the opposite that someone is responsible), however Real Ecology believes it is not needed. It is obsolete.

No one is directly responsible for the ecocide. It is completely improvable. Neither are the workers cutting down trees (deforestation) or the heads of corporations that see the financial profit. Even if someone is responsible; they are in a human fashion: compromise, corruption, and forgiveness. Backed by law, popularity, political correctness, etc. If nobody will arrest, prosecute, jail/execute you (for any reason whatsoever) then you did not commit the crime.

You do not have a real responsibility to Nature, I do. Humans do not want to die, do not want hardship, or to sacrifice something without getting something back. I do. They do not want poverty, thirst, or hunger. They do not want pain, let Nature keep it. Therefore the natural illusion, ignorance, disbelief that no pain is inflicted upon Nature kicks in, is maintained, and upheld. In other words: there is no such thing as the ecocide. Just like Jesus, he died for the sins of humans and that was a nice thing he did, simply as humans do not have to, do not want to die for their sins. Real Ecology is based on individual responsibility; you die for you your sins and nobody else.

It is not mandatory to have a real relationship with Nature, to have a responsibility; it is an alternative. All you have to do is realize, discover, and acknowledge that there is such a thing.

“It wasn’t me! I spent my whole life saving whales. Not a single whale died for me or my kids.” Yes the previous generations are to blame, just like the next generations will blame us. In other words: nobody at all is to blame and responsible for the ecocide, that is actually not happening. You can only convict someone of murder once they kill someone. If they do not succeed it is attempted murder.

Just like with humans every whale/wolf/buffalo was a ‘personality’. Important. Not that humans would realize, recognize, and respect that. Understand.