Documenting attributes in order to substitute adversarial assumptions. Anyone interested in creating a cooperative approach to sustaining nature and benefiting humanity will typically need to define and record a set of covenants, deed exceptions or conditions of cooperation for all participants. The purpose of such documents is to demonstrate a set of intentions, purposes and commitments; all in order to assist in avoiding conflict or aggression regarding environmental impacts, liquidation for profit, the creation of debt burdens, individual benefits, the implementation of all purposes, control based on beneficial contributions of labor, debt reduction, the prevention of hostility, as well as the continuation of habitat acquisition and long term benefits for humanity. An introductory statement of purpose may be general in nature allowing for a variety of approaches to implementation over a very extended period of time, or related to a variety of specific sites. Considerably more detailed conditions may specifically exclude certain destructive activities, specify restitution, encourage beneficial approaches to habitat protection and restoration, as well as long term approaches to benefit humanity; various options and the underlining intention for each condition.

Avoiding absorption by destructive social and commercial institutions. Society usually engulfs people in a personal struggle to acquire, maintain and hold onto possessions to the extent that no time is available to consider any alternative, nor develop a solution that is compatible with nature and our potentials. Naturally most people are not interested in any kind of relationships founded on insecurity, fear or personal suffering. However people will overwhelmingly insist on such controls and destructive systems; whether it’s related to justice, land use or personal relationships. Marriage for example usually puts people in the predicament of finding out about personal abuse a little too late, and ends up perpetuating abusiveness for another generation. What is termed a justice system is an adversarial system of vengeance, punishment and financial destruction, benefiting an over paid legal profession, an insurance industry and a prison system, with little or no regard for protecting anyone or anything, nor paying for any damages. Over 12 billion acres of forests, indigenous plants and animal species, along with 100’s of millions of people were aggressively destroyed with little or no regard. Of course all of which is intentional by design, all enacted in law and all dedicated to benefit powerful institutions and wealthy individuals. What may be overlooked is that it’s what we do on the small scale that in fact creates the power, control and the massively destructive activity that takes place on the large scale. For example, buying ready-made mass production housing has fueled international global deforestation; perhaps starting in Brazil in the 1520’s when the huge eastern rainforest were logged, and now continuing by promoting massive suburban sprawl that typically deteriorate into huge slums. Naturally there are numerous alternatives to deforestation, wood framing, sprawl, overpopulation, violence and unlimited economic expansion. However decades of training by families, schools, religions, industry, government, television and print media may be what has ended with a people that ultimately insist on their own submission and the submission of others to a social order founded on control, abuse and destructive impact. In addition because most people are already paid by, and are already participating in some aspect of a consumer industry, or perhaps managing others, or working in some adversarial legal process; there is a deep belief that the entire process including its destructive and vindictive purposes must be perpetuated because it is benign

Substituting the religion of mass production. The overwhelming commitment of humanity to mass production systems of manufacturing, personal services, government and education, is founded on an unproven belief that performing simple repetitive tasks provides the greatest benefits for humanity, because of the inherit speed of repetition and the uniformity, and because this is also so easily measured, it then became the recognized foundation of global wealth. The result of adhering to repetitive tasks as a business model has encouraged people to cut and sell every tree, build huge monotonous suburbs, promote extreme overpopulation, flood the world with consumer products, while ignoring pollution, wars and disease as secondary things to be tolerated. While a simple repetitive task may most efficiently produce the greatest volumes of any product, which of course is the primary social measure of wealth, status and self worth; however this model intentionally excluded the extreme cost of ecological destruction and restoration, and excluded the impact of the huge consumer populations that were and are still promoted to increase retail sales by encouraging human aggression and welfare which most often turns out to be a government breeding program designed to create a growing base of deprived and desperate consumers that finds themselves addicted to commercial consumption for meaning and enjoyment in life, along with its food supply, housing, transportation and education. However a more complete economic analysis can demonstrate that the commercial approach is 40 to 100 times less efficient at supporting life than the earlier means of human survival. Over 500 years of destroying villages in Europe, America and Asia along with many generations of indoctrination were required to promote the present commercial world order. Now considering and testing integrated approaches to life are crucial to finding various sustainable solutions to our own survival needs along with a continuing relationship with the remaining species of the earth. Of course the world is not waiting for our understanding. Those people who slow down to understand and help in the recovery process are of course swept aside; and generation by generation rendered extinct by a tidal wave of ever more desperate and far larger families who will ultimately consume anything that is conserved or created, as their birth right. Further, this process is quietly but vigorously funded by corporations through the various government legislatures that are acting in their behalf. There can be no peace in any region until these aggressive strategies are replaced by cooperative approaches that conscientiously support the restoration of the earth and considerately encourage humanities best evolutionary potentials.

Reconsidering what we are conditioned to accept. Since childhood we have been learning patterns that have guided us toward expectations that eventually become a large part of our reality. Of course many such patterns are enforced by literally millions of pages of laws, however even the non-legislated issues are rarely reconsidered by anyone, no matter how wasteful or completely optional these patterns may be. Few cultures have taken any time to reconsider the actual intentions and efforts of their society. Basic survival patterns have only been partially addressed in any community, perhaps because it is of little personal interest. It may be that conscious solutions to our life needs are completely objectionable no matter how beneficial, perhaps because years of schooling have inoculated so many against learning and change. I have tried to list a number of survival attributes that are invariably incorporated in some form by any culture. Either not mentioning or not fully understanding some issue doesn’t mean a community doesn’t take a position on some matter and act on that position. Such standardized or unconscious positions are often in direct conflict with a community’s survival interest. However avoiding the various survival issues may be considered simply a minor matter of personal inconvenience, which is proper to ignore altogether. I’m not saying that anybody needs to educate anyone else of anything; that usually doesn’t work. After a few early childhood experiences any non-trivial personal changes are typically an impossibility, which of course has a tremendous stabilizing effect. People will in various ways mention where their personal limits or taboo areas are, and of course most people do know and respect all the undocumented social barriers. However that doesn’t mean that anyone has to abide by any such restrictions or conditioning programs within their own personal thought process. Allowing ourselves to reconsider various community alternatives certainly doesn’t mean eventually imposing some long list of rules on anyone; perhaps beyond not doing damages, and covering expenses; with literally every other personal consideration being optional.

Integrating attributes without an attorney. Most communities appear to emphasize and implement certain beneficial attributes, with little regard to many other issues and conventions that are inadvertently being adopted by default; any of which may be without benefit or may be highly detrimental. As a result a community may be categorized by one or two basic attributes; of course any potential member may also be focused on just one or two issues, whether its: vegetarianism, a religious dogma or perhaps social camaraderie. It can take a lifetime to recognize how laws, economic beliefs and educational dogma were interwoven by our commercial societies. It may take considerably more time to observe all the existing helpful research around us perhaps including the wisdom of various aboriginal societies, and then translate that understanding in a way that is compatible with government law and the communities we are intending to serve. Whatever model or vision we choose to benefit nature and people, it will imply a complete paradigm shift that will be dependent on a completely revised understanding of our options and actions. Further any time we work with land, business or any cooperative effort, a need to define covenants, ecological conditions or personal agreements can certainly arise, and this need should be accommodated to help achieve the beneficial purposes and to avoid any extraordinarily wasteful conflicts. We might consider that catastrophic conflicts are almost inevitable guaranteed in our adversarial societies. If there is going to be any broad understanding of the various options and potential benefits, which are significantly free of destructive conflicts, then a wide range of possible terms may needs to be understood, defined and documented; unless the community focus is extremely limited or strictly authoritarian. Even when a project is well managed by one considerate and hard working person, then their death, illness or absence will typically mean disaster for a natural environment or the community they are caring for, if is ever sold in probate or by an heir. However going to an attorney for assistance with ecological or social covenants can have some negative consequences unless by some bizarre twist of fate the attorney personally understood the ecological and social alternatives that are of critical interest. Alternatively, with sufficient legal, environmental and community research, a well considered and complete document could be personally prepared in advance, which defines all the purposes, intentions and conditions. But if you did all of this why would you need an attorney? Further legal costs at hundreds of dollars per hour could be astronomical unless a nearly final document was developed perhaps after two or three years of real effort, of course based on several decades of working experience. A document prepared by an attorney would almost always be extraordinarily different than something prepared by and for those interested in improving the circumstances of nature or humanity. Attorney designed documents may primarily address issues of control, typically at a distance from an office perhaps requiring the personal guidance of an attorney, and almost inevitably based on an extremely costly adversarial justice system. Such a structure can serve to redefine, financially exhaust and ultimately defeat the original purposes envisaged.

Native American constitutions and conservancy documents. To get some advice on how to develop guiding principles and documents, I looked up conservation documents for several large nature reserves and publications from the Land Trust Alliance. All of these documents were helpful guides to form, but lacking in environmentally or socially conscious content, and of course all written by attorneys for the benefit of control by attorneys. When I worked in Arizona to pay for attorneys to protect some ancient trees, I went to the Arizona State University law library and read the constitutions of numerous Native American nations. All of which demonstrated that the documents were written by attorneys, for the purpose of control from an office, and naturally in support of an adversarial judicial process. These documents also demonstrated virtually no sense of environmental regard nor any protection for a community’s process. The fundamental understanding I could deduce from all the constitutions could be summarized as: Indians will do what Indians will do. Which is fine because they have thousands of years of cultural history and an oral tradition that conveys most of the appropriate understandings. So they certainly don’t need any such documents anyway. However the aboriginal community models may also offer considerable protection from many needless conflicts, from hostile lawyers in a vindictive courtroom, an antagonistic divorce, environmental destruction, suburban sprawl, penitentiaries, taxation, bureaucracy, homelessness and most serious violence on the larger reservations where the traditions are still intact.

Need for a web attribute database. If our work is supposed to have some broader benefits to nature and community, then the understanding that is required may be considerable. Since such work needs to become an improved alternative to all the knowledge and conclusions of a civilization that we have been complete immersed in and that we will undoubtedly remain in contact with. Consequently we are certainly dependent on many resources to acquire the necessary understanding. Ideally we might develop a searchable web site where such functional community information could be saved and accessed as needed.

Energy needed for defense and continuity. Nature reserves and ecologically oriented communities may be attempting to develop what may be the survivable alternative to an old and violent civilization. Of course all of this has to be accomplished typically with very limited financial resources, while at the same time paying for the infrastructure and debt of an unsustainable society. With little financial or personal help and often with inadequate knowledge, these endeavors must of course also demonstrate real ecological or social advances, on an almost immediate basis. Of course it’s a wonder that project survives at all and achieves even one beneficial purpose. Certainly no project can sustain any assault by the dominant culture, nor perhaps defend itself from the millions of pages of laws, its extraordinarily abusive procedures nor its vengeful penalties. Of course any judicial assault need not be based on wrongdoing but may be inflicted for minding your own business, breaking no laws, harming no one and doing the right thing. Obtaining policies of title insurance which incorporate and reference a set of recorded attributes along with a liability insurance policy which covers full litigation defenses may be extremely useful. Abusive people can be enraged by or seek to destroy any kind of intentionally life supportive endeavor, perhaps because it contradicts their own life strategy. Of course life on earth may not survive with such a vindictive dominant culture for very long either. So a process of understanding may be useful to broaden the range of possible solutions. Consequently the following table contrasts the various approaches utilized by the typical adversarial social model versus a cooperative approach. We might also understand that the cooperative tasks have to be accomplished by an exceedingly tiny percentage of the people of any area. Certainly less than 1 in 1000 people will actually put their personal energy behind any beneficial purpose, or more realistically perhaps about 1 in 5000 may provide any personal energy to initiate some beneficial effort, of course a few more may help if there has been some real progress. Naturally such efforts do offer real survival assistance, which also needs to be nurtured and protected. Nevertheless it may be realistic neither to overestimate the possibility for growth; nor to widely publicize any accomplishments; however to pursue a steady process of beneficial growth and understanding on many fronts.

Considering the compatibility of attributes. Personal and community attributes are interlocking. The impact of another person, an institution, an education or a career can either nurture or block our access and understanding of nature, either nurture or block our individual purposes, or our ability to protect the environment, or participate with our own evolutionary purposes.

Documentation to assist in sustaining purpose and aspiration. Since we live in a culture without a functional oral tradition, a system founded on written law, then any alternatives need to be documented in a form that is legally recognizable, documented and recorded to provide for a projects continuity, to specify limitations and essential areas of encouragement. Various environmental purposes and life supportive possibilities undoubtedly need to be documented in detail in order to be sustained, to continue beyond the death or absence of the founders, and not diverted into miscellaneous extraneous intentions, or concentrated into just one of several significant purposes. The documented conditions may encourage significant and complementary purposes by balancing growth and expenditures. A statement of purpose may be general in nature to allow for a broad range of possibilities and account for an evolutionary process of learning, change and improvements. A much more substantial supporting statement of conditions may assist in defining the limitations to destructive behavior, personal consumption or waste, as well as how to develop the various supportive and constructive purposes where the understanding or the aspirations are substantial.

Biologic dependence and independence. Historically and technologically there may be some sort of a transition toward greater dependency, greater subservience and social reaction; or perhaps our specie never was particularly well prepared to function relying on its own awareness, in spite of all the great teachers, religions and universities. If our awareness and cooperative abilities have a biological component, and there is probably no way that it couldn’t; as well as its certain evidence in other species; then the biggest issues facing any ecosystem or communities survival may be in the working tools of the molecular biologist; and if we feel morally superior by opposing and not caring to pursue our best interests, with the knowledge we actually have available to us, then no doubt we are perhaps inadvertently choosing, perpetuating, and no doubt earning much of our suffering and failures, undoubtedly much as our predecessors have done, by an attack or ignorance of the very knowledge and tools that could help us survive. Certainly the dominant business interests are eager to use any of these tools to dominate their acquisition of a market and a people, and if necessary to diminish our capabilities through personal apprehensions or fear, and to increase our economic dependency. Unfortunately we as a people may well want to diminish our own capabilities, perhaps in the name of comfort or dependency. So far we have spent over a million years working at inadvertently or intentionally loosing our body hair, becoming slower than a chicken, developing extreme frailties to heat and cold, and creating a dependency on a broad range of amino-acid and vitamin requirements far beyond any other creature. Evidently any species can barely keep more than one biologic objective in focus at any one time. So some fly, some swim, and some just think about how to devour the others. Evolution has a way of letting all our unfulfilled potentials disappear forever, even if they could have been our best long-term survival opportunities. Most of us have been psychologically and morally prepared to act as biological passengers, while disregarding the extraordinary potentials around us, guided by principals that we are never encouraged to consider; supposedly guided by self-interest, intuition, or social agreements, which are by default based on adversarial or self-centered principles. Well we, in fact, do know how to do better than that, and there’s no point in denying our consciousness; and as a result rendering ourselves either less conscious, extinct or incapable of undoing at least a portion of the great harm done by our myopic species and its authoritarian leaders, who are openly planning to greatly expand our future populations to benefit their industries, while offering us greater ignorance, hereditary diseases by encouraging our fears, famines and pandemics through population expansion and resource depletion, all for their potentially unbelievable financial gains. Unfortunately this winning economic theory is founded on complete planetary subjugation, and some very inefficient business strategies which require our fullest dependency. The alternative no doubt includes our independent understanding process, the independent application of our current knowledge to benefit human health, longevity and consciousness, as well as our ability to protect the natural environment and restore the earth’s endangered species. However the knowledge needed to directly participate with our own survival process and to be helpful to the continuation of other endangered species is considerable, and consequently is dependent on a long-term cooperative working process.

Project scale. Some relevance may also be attached to the size of a conservancy or an environmental community. However its informational, economic or agricultural independence may allow for greater sustainability than scale. There may not necessarily be a relevant difference between an ecological community of 500, or perhaps 100 environmental projects that average 5, whether they are nearby or distant. Except perhaps that some government agency might be more likely to pursue the destruction of the more obvious entity because it may be perceived as different and somehow viewed as a threat to conformity or perhaps an alternative to ecological destruction. Perhaps many people join groups to debate decisions. However most issues are fairly obvious matters that should be resolved in a thoughtful, efficient and non-destructive manner. Many such issues can be defined in a set of covenants or conservation conditions and not require monthly or annual debate. Further the subtleties of any new decision that can arise might simply be resolved in a short, casual conversation, whenever it’s convenient. Since it is well known that legislative processes and government agencies are ultimately controlled by the campaign contributions of big business, with no significant prospect for improvements in support of ecology or life. Further these institutions are always at least a few decades, or more often several centuries too late to respond or be of any help; so we might consider the alternatives. When damages are created no matter how great, or efficiently executed, or how extraordinarily high in impact, they have no lasting value, nor consequences that are in any way worth sustaining. As we know even the children of the abusers or an areas conquerors are often morally and biologically defeated. No one could imagine doing greater damages than humanity’s pursuit of money and consumption through various global business plans. For example. When the rain forests are eliminated there may no longer be a tropical refuge to sustain the higher life forms through the next ice age, when glaciers reappear at 34 degrees north, just east of San Diego California and in the city of Palm Springs. Incidentally the last ice age took only 20 years to go into full effect, so these enormous events can progress extremely rapidly. The process of global warming can increase sufficient quantities of fresh water in the oceans to dilute the salt content and stop the Caribbean current from cycling to Europe which could make Europe perhaps colder than northern Siberia. Naturally without a rainforest, rainfall can decline to 1/3, perhaps making reforestation an impossibility. Of course there’s a dozen other equally devastating prospects for the earth, all well into their developing stages, so it’s hard to guess what could emerge first. Naturally industry and government is not just, not responding, but accelerating the human and environmental pressures, perhaps because it appears profitable. So in order to encourage more considerate and responsive behavior, the only alternative may be the personal responsibility and endurance of extremely few individuals with substantial personal capabilities; who can imagine, design and implement effective solutions, as the solutions are needed, and transmit that knowledge through the internet, to others, who should be able to save decades of their personal time, thinking, designing and testing, in order to assist with success instead of maintaining frustration and promoting disaster.

Value of work. There may be many time more jobs that need to be performed than there are people on earth, and there are 100’s of millions of poor and wealthy people with nothing to do. Unemployment usually translates into nothing to do. Opportunities to study, help with reforestation, protect endangered species, grow ones own food, or build one’s own home are typically ignored. Perhaps less than 1 in 1000 have built and live in their own home. The incentive is to get a scarce commercial job, usually doing something completely unnecessary, and for some relief from a mind numbing job, then squander the earned money on useless, excessive or disposable things, so that little or no resources remain to do anything creative or constructive. So disposable products have value, forests, oil and land has value if it is turned into a disposable product. Anything becomes marketable and valuable if it can be disposed of and destroyed; and of no economic value if it can be protected and cared for. So how can creating something of no value create jobs? Since life or nature has no value in the commercial model, then working for free may be the only opportunity available. However, where is the incentive unless the participant obtains something of extraordinary personal value, and perhaps is willing to live in a state of voluntary simplicity in order to free their time sufficiently? These concepts can also apply in a commercial context. If production could support necessary and sustainable purposes and replace disposable and unnecessary products then human economic efficiency could increase by at least a factor of 10. If at the same time ecological destruction could be entered into the cost equation and stopped, human efficiency could increase again at least by a factor of 10, through respect for life and nature, our knowledge, enjoyment and survivability would be extraordinarily enhanced. Based on our habitat restoration efforts, the decades of work required to partially restore a site are exceptionally costly, at least $7 per square foot in a complex arid chaparral habitat requiring drip irrigation, and perhaps with higher costs in a considerably more complex tropical rain forest. Considering that well over 15 billion acres of habitat have been destroyed, then with 1/10 of the world’s $35 trillion annual income and 600,000,000 well educated workers, it may take about 3,000 years to partially restore the damages caused so far. All of which suggests that at least $8 of destruction is caused for every $1 earned, and for every 10 cents of profit. Of course we can’t expect any shift in business strategies or personal attitudes, and so we are pretty much dependant on some sort of self-inflicted environmental catastrophe to limit the process of human destruction. Environmental regulations may only prolong and multiply industry’s destructive impact on the earth and consequently greatly increase the level of species extinction. People like Rachael Carson and her book The Silent Spring may not be offering much help by reducing toxic death rates since it only prolongs and allows for the expansion of commercial pollution, overpopulation, habitat destruction, as well as offering some confidence that the issues are being resolved. Since we don’t actually know how resilient the earth may be to industrial pollution, we don’t know if our efforts are already too little and too late. If we are already too late to be of much use, then a functional and personally demonstrable knowledge of nature and simplicity can very likely be of personal survival value. Whatever species, genes and traits we intentionally decide to nurture, may substantially be what ultimately survives and remains on earth. So our bio-consciousness may be a significant part of our future and there will never be a better time to create a base line of life on earth that protects and nurtures this immense legacy.

Process of decision. A nature reserve or ecological community doesn’t need to be involved in a process of democratic political struggle, founded on a popularity contest. Instead it can be a place of efficient and productive work based on its beneficial purposes and principles, all founded on an open process of analysis and understanding, utilizing a consensus review process, where anyone can individually direct attention to any related issue until the matter is resolved. Even in a small group, a democratic voting process may not allow an individual to direct full attention toward the resolution of some significant matters. The small and relevant details always accumulate into significant changes or obsolesce. Consensus can be an alternative to a democratic popularity battle for domination by the most empathetic, aggressive or affluent. Perhaps no one would want an airplane designed by a committee that was founded on a democratic voting process; but would more likely want the structural decisions to be based on an open review process performed by extremely well informed individuals with a real sense of dedication, where any one voice can focus attention on any detail. Of course we might consider how we might be at least as considerate in our care for nature and our own evolutionary potentials. Further consensus need not be misdirected by any adversarial individual, nor need anyone entertain objections that are in conflict with the project’s fundamental purposes, nor for the purpose of interrupting anyone’s productive efforts.

Decisions based on financial investments can rapidly destabilize the functioning of any project, disrupt or terminate the fundamental purposes, and dispose of the entire conservancy. Since financial gain is not the purpose of a nature reserve, nor the purpose of habitat protection, restoration, continuation or protection. Consequently it should not be a guiding principle of a nature reserve, since financial motives could terminate and destroy a nature reserve for immediate personal profits. If money is equated with power or influence, it could be quickly transferred in to establish control and quickly retrieved after liquidation of a conservancy. Of course loans can have a similar influence and consequently must be sufficiently limited to avoid stress, imbalance and destabilization.

If voting should ever be utilized to resolve a fundamental decision, then it may be proportional to the number of hours of valuable and necessary work that are voluntarily contributed to the conservancy’s purposes. For example, one hour’s work equals one vote. Alternatively, one person one vote, can mean that the person who contributed nothing, does nothing and is opposed to the fundamental purposes has the same influence as a person who contributed decades of crucial labor to accomplish the most essential tasks. Financial contributions do not translate to an hourly-voting equivalent, to avoid immediately overwhelming the decision process and redirecting or liquidating an entire project. Further death need not end the influence of hourly voluntary contributions since they may be dedicated to emphasize a specific commitment or task for the benefit of nature or humanity; however without eliminating a balance between other essential purposes.

While the purposes may express prohibitions against environmental destruction or promote caring for endangered species, however those purposes may be eroded if the participant’s instincts and daily activities do not reflect those purposes. Consequently anyone’s personal history may be most relevant in understanding a persons intentions, interests and abilities. However what a person says about such things may be accurate, but also may be completely misleading, consequently one’s personal actions, efforts, expenditures and contributions would be far more relevant. Any dedication to a significant ecological or evolutionary purpose would no doubt include expenditures of at least 50% of one’s own personal labor, financial income, expenses and investments, all of which would directly benefit those purposes. Long-term, effective and very substantial personal dedication is at least as significant in the care of nature and the processes of life as any other endeavor we could consider and deserves our personal time and our most imaginative and thoughtful attention.

What people want.  In the process of making anything useful we might get around to considering if it could possibly be wanted, versus what would actually be needed, or versus various other completely unconsidered or undeveloped aspirations. When anyone goes to work every day, a substantial limiting factor or perhaps the deciding factor in any desire, need or purchase may be the personal time available to consider, create or locate anything. Further the solution to any need, weather it is real or imaginary almost always has to be purchased since there is so little free time to figure out or create any solutions, and typically there's no way to support anyone to create innovative and necessary solutions.  Naturally an idea can often replace a manufactured product or greatly reduce the need or cost.  Nevertheless money and power transfers to manufactured products and not to considerably more useful ideas that can save time, money and the environment.  Of course the manufactured solutions that are provided are usually attractively packaged, fragile, complicated, quickly obsolete, typically energy wasteful, well advertised, often completely unnecessary, or the wrong size and completely disposable. So after twenty or thirty years of paying on a house big enough to hold a huge collection of things, the required chores then grow to include the maintenance, insurance and replacement of the very substantial collection of mostly unnecessary things, perhaps needed as a definition of success and comfort.  Before creating anything we might consider what people actually support with their earnings.  The 3 largest areas of expenditures appear to be: 1) manufactured consumables, which includes: the house or apartment and everything in it, including the car, the streets, food, and many thousands of other items; 2) support of power and control, to regulate or perpetuate abuse and violence, which includes: police, lawyers, courts, prisons, governments, schools, finance, weapons and military operations; all essential to aggressively obtain or hold on to excess possessions or just for abusive gratification; 3) relief from pain and suffering, which includes: medicine, religion, drugs, alcohol, addictions, gambling, obesity, entertainment, pets, psychological therapy and insurance; all of which may be needed to deal with the excessive consumption and aggressive abuse . Of course careers are based on a lifetime of study and effort to be successful in one of these 3 areas. The resulting products have evolved over decades through effective packaging, advertising and aggressively marketing in order to be to be even noticed at all. Naturally what may really be needed is not a subject of public dialog or advertising, and as a result either is not wanted or not acknowledged and so it's missing from our lives, which is of course is why it’s needed.  Most life needs are not packaged or marketed, perhaps because they are not consumables, nevertheless have a real cost, consequently not profitable, therefore not realistic and not worth anyone's time, or perhaps because it isn’t considered socially acceptable to spend time to benefit life.  The needs of forests, ecological systems, human beings and other living creatures tend to fall into these less relevant categories, consequently these matters are most often neglected or even considered available for industrial abuse or destruction. Naturally these neglected matters maybe the only things that are relevant about our life aspirations and necessities, our evolution and continuity; both priceless and rejected, however certainly worth a lifetime of learning and cooperative participation.

Comments. This is a rough draft of various attributes and miscellaneous considerations. If you notice that anything is missing or inaccurate please pass along a correction note or perhaps your own contribution of text, that could be included within any of at least a dozen related subject areas.

© 2001, River Grove

Return to Home Page