All Systems Are Broken!

A roof over your head.

This is where we live; the type of environment we live in plays a large factor in determining our health. Unfortunately, the places we live revolve around the class system. Organizations build housing that matches the wealth in the area. If the location is in a poor district, then low-income housing is built. This only strengthens the class system. This article discusses nature conservation and housing, but the topic applies to any type of construction: factories, offices, roads, and so on. The point of mentioning diverse housing is to highlight that more attention goes into nature conservation when housing is built for the wealthy. Construction companies understand that adding "nature-type features" is a moneymaker, increasing the unit price of the house or apartment.

Side note: The "class system" is mentioned across this series of articles. If you have read previous articles in this series, you know this is a common theme. This is done to highlight the divisions in society, and inequality is the outcome of a divided society.

Country living

Unfair allocation of money means we cannot all live in the most desirable location with the finest housing. Many people would like to reside in a rural setting away from pollution, with lots of trees, more space, and fresh air. The people that have fared successfully through the competition-based monetary system will have greater choices in life, and this includes living in better locations and housing.

What do we mean by unfair allocation of money? This means people either had historical wealth in their families or had to work within the monetary system. The monetary system is unfair because it is competition-based; individuals have to compete their entire lives to "maybe" have the choice of living in the most desirable location and have the best housing. The majority of the world's population falls under the latter category, i.e., they were not born into a wealthy family. It is necessary to mention money in the context of nature conservation and the environment. Money is linked to where people can live, and where people live is interlinked with nature conservation and the environment.

Let's build it now and we'll worry about the other things later.

This has typically been the approach in the construction industry. The population has grown significantly over the last century. This leads to a greater demand for more housing and facilities. When modern housing is built, very little consideration is given to preserving green spaces, plant life, trees, and the environment. A plot of land is discovered, and housing is built based on a particular societal class.

Health risks: Housing may have been built near big factories or nearby major roads that omit high levels pollution. Pollution has been identified as one of the biggest health risks for premature deaths. Respiratory conditions are known to be linked to pollution, and other health problems are also associated with toxicity. The problem has merely increased over time, and our cities are heavily polluted. Related links: Air pollution a big risk to human health and Health risks associated with pollution

Green spaces: We do not maintain enough green spaces, and little consideration has been given to nature conservation when building new housing. Some of this is "gradually" changing with recent knowledge about the environment and nature.

Home comforts: The focus is to develop housing for people based on their societal class; this has been happening for centuries. To begin with, only the wealthy could afford luxuries like fresh water in the house and electricity. Eventually, other people benefited from these services. The organizations that supplied these utilities realized electricity, gas, and fresh water were massive money-making rackets. With the introduction of these utilities, housing became a lot more sophisticated.

Too busy with progress to think about nature conservation: People at the time were basking in the glory of having something so transformational come straight into their homes. Everything is always about filling a need for the most significant financial gain. As populations in cities grew, more land was required for building, and the network of utilities kept being patched up and expanded. At the time, construction was happening largely without a thought for nature conservation or the environment. It is only in the last 5 years that we have started to see some thought put into nature and the environment, but at an incredibly leisurely pace.

What happened to the plants, trees and wildlife? New construction projects have ruined wildlife habitats, felled trees, and removed so much of the plant life that insects and wildlife depend on. Even in recent years, things are not being done properly; it's more a case of let's construct it and put some grass around the building and dot a few trees around it, and they tell us this is the green space and eco-friendly environment? Architects who design like this just don't have a clue, and the entire area looks unnatural.

What materials are used to initiate construction? Are materials recyclable? Are they biodegradable? Are they harmful to people? Are they energy-saving? In the past, none of these things were taken into account when building anything.

Where do you want us to build it then?

We cannot respond to this question without mentioning the past. Historically, a flawed approach was adopted in construction, and the attitude has been profit first. The other reason was a lack of understanding of how plundering natural resources would affect the planet. Land was acquired for agriculture, housing, rail, and road networks without any nature or environmental regulations. As cities were growing, it was seen as progress. The problem is that once infrastructure has been put in place, it is hard to replace it with something different. The existing infrastructure is patched up and expanded where required.

Corruption in the construction industry: Similar to other industries, the construction industry maintains considerable influence politically and with regulatory bodies. Big influence, meaning money. There is corruption within construction companies. This also relates to the type of materials being used to build. Where are the materials sourced? Are they sustainable? and Are they safe around people? Before we see a greater change in nature conservation and the environment, the corruption within the construction industry needs to be addressed. A related link: The impacts of infrastructure sector & corruption on conservation

Addressing the question, where do you want us to build it? Construction of any type will disturb some form of nature; even digging in our gardens disturbs many creatures in the soil. In the same way large-scale building disrupts creatures in the soil, plant life, and wildlife that depend on those things, Every inch of the planet supports an ecosystem, which means building any type of structure will disrupt nature in some way. The answer is to build in balance with nature rather than putting up infrastructure in record time and leaving fragile ecosystems to recover by letting nature reclaim the space.

The priority with any type of construction should be to preserve ecosystems. Even areas that look derelict will support ecosystems that have adapted to humans occupying the space that was once part of nature. The modernization of derelict areas should be carried out in a way that reuses every natural resource, and construction should be done using methods that give back to nature. We are believed to be the most "intelligent" species, and we exploit land for our own benefit. It is our responsibility to encourage nature to return in abundance.

We wrote about the environment in this article: The Environment.

Everything is connected. Ever since humans set foot on the planet, they have consumed its resources. To begin with, humans merely utilized what they needed in very small amounts: firewood, land, water, various plants, fish, and animal meat. With the significant population of the planet now, this is all happening on a monumental scale. Acquiring more land for agriculture means raising more livestock, crops, or any type of farming. More and more land is taken away from nature to feed the world's population. Until recently, all this happened without even a thought of the long-term effects on nature and the environment.

Living in different worlds on the same planet: While we all have been competing for more knowledge in schools, colleges, universities, and working in offices. There's another world that is grabbing and tearing up every type of natural resource on a vast scale, using colossal machinery. The ownership of these resources goes to various conglomerate companies. Companies purchase the land, or countries claim ownership of resources because they fall within their borders. Resource ownership continues to be an area of contention between countries. When conglomerates require valuable resources, they will stop at nothing to obtain them, even if it involves obliterating natural ecosystems.

Just need to get from A to B.

The issues of nature conservation and the environment are vast, with one problem interlinked with another. This article would be more of a book if every problem was included, but we do want to mention the impact of bottled water on the environment by including these shocking articles: Environmental impact of bottled water up to 3500 times greater than tap water. and The fight over water how nestle dries up us creeks to sell water in plastic bottles.

Fossil fuels includes coal, petroleum, natural gas, oil shales, bitumen's, tar sands, and heavy oils. Use of fossil fuels includes any product that is a derivative of fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel transportation includes ships, cars, trains, buses, airplanes, and farm vehicles. Any form of transportation or machinery that uses fossil fuels.

The majority of our transportation is powered by fossil fuels, on our roads, the vehicles emit toxic exhaust gases and pollutants. These pollutants have been proven to be harmful to people and wildlife. How long has it been known about? The problem has been known for decades, at least since the 1950s. It wasn't widely advertised, of course, and the last thing vehicle manufacturers and oil companies wanted to do was inform the car-buying public of toxic pollutants that are harmful to people; otherwise, they wouldn't have sold as many vehicles. A related article: Climate crimes in the oil and gas environment.

This is not the fault of the general public for using fossil fuel-powered vehicles. The public merely wants to use the end product, and it is not their responsibility to perform scientific tests to see if products are harmful to others or the environment. The oil companies and car manufacturers should be transparent about the dangers they identified decades ago and make that information available to everyone. Related articles: Oil industry fossil fuel air pollution documents. and Dirty lies how the car industry hid the truth about diesel emissions

More is now known about pollution and its effects on the environment, and we are seeing some mentionable signs of environmentally friendly alternatives. Now that the manufacturers and governments are shifting their narrative, the pressure suddenly switches to the general public to change and buy environmentally friendly vehicles. The media, as usual, will push the government agenda and spin it to make out that people driving fossil fuel-powered vehicles are "bad people." The government sets the narrative, the media pushes that narrative, and then the public, which includes all organizations, all businesses, and most people, is programmed into that mindset. A classic example is when people were not allowed to smoke cigarettes in public places. The context of smoking cigarettes in this paragraph is not to discuss the habit of smoking but how government and media set the narrative used to push the agenda. Increasingly, the narrative will be, "You haven't got that environmentally friendly car yet? You're a bad person." Who creates the rules and regulations around the environment to begin with? see article: The Environment.

Incentives to make it expensive to use fossil fuel-powered vehicles are envisaged, so eventually people will have no alternative but to switch. We all want clean air everywhere, and we want to look after the environment, but the responsibility has invariably been with governments, oil companies, and car manufacturers. Products shouldn't make it to the manufacturing process until they have been deemed environmentally friendly and safe for people, wildlife, and plant life.

Pollution from factories and coal-fired power plants travels in the air and enters our oceans. We are observing the environmental effects of this around the entire planet. We live in and around major road networks, and polluting factories and vehicle and factory pollutants affect our health. It also affects wildlife and plant life. There are some soft terms around pollution and environmental problems, and even the word pollution does not describe the severity of the problem. We should describe these problems in a simple but hard-hitting way. Vehicle pollution is essentially "poison on wheels," and being exposed to elevated levels of toxins in the air will shorten our lifespan. A related link: Ocean acidification deadly threat to marine life finds eight year study.

Let's put it another way... The extra years you might have devoted to loved ones could be taken away due to pollution. The effects on the climate happen gradually, just as the effects on our health are seen gradually. This is why people do not react immediately to it. One of the traits of being human is to react to immediate dangers but not to something that is gradually killing us. All the industries involved in producing fossil fuels and the industries that rely on fossil fuels need to change quicker. Governments should be putting pressure on these industries to change quicker. A related article: Car fumes air pollution ban motorists.

It's no wonder people want to live and work in rural locations away from factories and congested highways where the air is cleaner, but as we discussed earlier, that lifestyle remains only a choice if you fare well in the monetary system. This is not an option for most people, and they have to live near heavy traffic-congested areas and, in some places, factories pumping out pollutants. These people inhale their daily dose of toxic pollutants.

There is a trend in people wanting to move to rural areas for fresh air, space, scenery, and so on, but increasingly rural areas are experiencing other effects of climate change like flooding and landslides due to land corrosion. Everything is connected.

Money determines the most favorable environment to live in, and this affects a person's well-being. In the modern era, humanity doesn't have to structure everything around money. We've chosen to do it that way, but with absolute world unity, we have the intelligence to discover another way.

Giving back to nature,

The human race has kept on taking from nature: plant food, other animals, land, water, or any other natural resources. All other life forms live in balance with the environment, or they did until humans started to disrupt their environment too. It has become increasingly evident in the last few years that the human race does not live in balance with nature. We have taken more than our share, and we will continue down this path.

Growing trees after destroying so many is not really giving back to nature; we're merely trying to repair what we've broken. Humans haven't given anything back to nature; they've only taken from it. Producing our own compost, collecting rainwater, and feeding birds does make our own garden welcoming to wildlife and make us feel better about "ourselves." We do it for our own enjoyment. If a lot more people took part, it would support nature. However, what's happening in enormous spaces where colossal construction projects are being built—preserving nature and the environment around these projects—absolutely needs to change. For example, when gigafactories are built or a new transportation network. A related article: Giga factory and environmentalists. We have all seen these incredibly huge warehouses outside of city areas—the ones that ship us our online orders. They look completely out of place and do not integrate with nature in any way. Are we going to see more of this?

The "drive" is for more eco-friendly cars, and everyone around the world will eventually look for that shiny new electric or hydrogen car. Has anyone really thought about nature conservation and the environment? The last thing we want is to transition from fossil fuels to electricity or hydrogen without eliminating every single conservation and environmental problem associated with that industry. There's no point in innovation at the expense of nature and the environment. The human race needs The Earth, but The Earth does not need the human race.

Nature can be destructive; in fact, The Earth we recognize now was created through destruction and recreation, and there have always been natural disasters. If nature is going through destruction and recreation, some people may ask, Why does it matter if we keep exploiting all the resources? The world and humans can benefit from it. The answer to that question is that we should be living in balance with nature, regardless of its own destructive forces. Instead, the human effect has disrupted this balance, and we are seeing the result of this in the increasing effects of climate change.

Everything in nature is connected, and nature has a one-to-one relationship with everything until it comes to humans. Most of humanity is disconnected from nature and is even carrying out experiments to try to control nature.

Just a thought...

What if humans were not at the top of the chain? It's true that humans have invented amazing things, but it is disheartening to not see the same intelligence go into caring for our planet. On the Universal (Cosmic) scale, we are nowhere near the top of the chain. Humans have been able to control other animals, plants, and land, but here's something to ponder. What if the overseer of humans is nature, and maybe this is what we are seeing with the increasing destructive effects of climate change? Maybe it's nature trying to bring itself back into equilibrium. If there is an extinction of all animal species (Humans are part of the animal kingdom) and plant life, this would be just a consequence of nature bringing itself back into equilibrium. As mentioned before, the human race needs The Earth, but The Earth does not need the human race. We just have this notion that we are bigger than anything else.

We're not the only ones saying it - check these links.

• Meat wildlife biodiversity species plant based
• Our global food system primary driver of biodiversity loss
• Agriculture and overuse greater threats to wildlife
• Brexit farming promises broken

Updated links since article published.

• CNBC - 2022 - Worlds biggest firms seen exaggerating their climate actions.