Live From The Earth Summit Why Should We Care About The Earth Charter?

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA -- ASN -- On the opening day of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), a.k.a. Earth Summit II in Johannesburg, South Africa, I attended a four-hour-long conference entitled, Educating for Sustainable Living with the Earth Charter.ý Steven Rockefeller, head of the Earth Charter Commission, U.S.A, showed up to address the crowd packed into a tent. There are at least three major reasons why every American should take careful notice of this Earth Summit II and the Earth Charter, a document some portray as a constitution for a New World Order.

It is significant that Steven Rockefeller is the lead crusader for the Earth Charter since his family donated the land on the East River in New York City to establish the United Nations (UN) global headquarters.

It is also noteworthy that the Earth Charter evolves around "sustainable development," a phrase that is nearly impossible to grasp, but is essentially a new way to advocate Marxism, which suckers the simple-minded into thinking that absolute social and economic equity is possible. History has shown, of course, that it is the most cruel form of government led by an unaccountable ruling elite.

And because the Earth Charter is to be implemented through schools and religious institutions, it is imperative that spiritual leaders, parents, educators and elected officials be made aware of it.

Creation of an Earth Charter is not a new idea. In 1987, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development issued a call for the creation of a new charter that would set forth fundamental principles for an all-inclusive idea called sustainable development, essentially a call for using the environment to control every aspect of every person's life everywhere. And then in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was created with the express purpose of using the environment to redistribute the world s wealth.

Following the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Earth Charter movement was taken up by Maurice Strong, head of the Earth Summit I, and Mikhail Gorbachev, former dictator of the U.S.S.R., with Steven Rockefeller the driving force behind their efforts.

Strong desperately wanted the world to adopt the Earth Charter during the 1992 Earth Summit as a powerful guide for"sustainable development," but was forced to admit that the world was not ready for it then. He now believes it is ready.

The Earth Charter not only deals with social and economic issues, it is a spiritual document, and the spiritual emphasis is not the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. The first speaker at Monday's forum in Johannesburg was Eiichi Yamashita, Vice Minister for Environment in Japan, who proclaimed, "Education is key to resuscitate the Earth," adding, "I am praying for steady and strong improvements." A typical comment from one who embraces an Eastern, Earth-based religion, Yamashita set the tone for the lead crusader of the Earth Charter, Steven Rockefeller.

As the second presenter, Rockefeller explained that the Earth Charter incorporates the "wisdom of the world s religions." Claiming that we "must respect other persons and other life forms while putting special emphasis on peace, thus building peace on earth," Rockefeller said this inclusive, integrated and spiritual approach [the Earth Charter] will be presented during the WSSD meeting in an "Ark of Hope" reminiscent of the biblical Ark of the Covenant complete with carrying rods.

In the U.S., Rockefeller says the Earth Charter has been endorsed at local and grassroots levels, which may be "different from what you hear from the current administration [in the White House]."

Razeena Wagiet, Environmental Adviser to National Minister of Education in the Republic of South Africa, told the gathering that "Steven Rockefeller has given us a firm foundation from which to build upon "sustainable development," adding that "this focus for development of South Africa began at the Millennium Summit [the 2000 UN confab in New York City that brought together the largest gathering of heads of state ever in the history of the world]."

According to astrologers, Wagiet said that the world is about to enter a Golden Age, a New Age, an Age of Aquarius rather than a crisis as warned during the Y2K forecasts. A woman identifying herself as a Buddhist said she felt the vibrations at this beginning of the Aquarian Age. Before Wagiet could respond to a question about the population bomb that could extinguish the Age of Aquarius a woman singling herself out as a Quaker interrupted telling the questioner that he should be ashamed of overlooking the greater problem which is that Americans "are consuming 200% more resources than the poor," implying that the U.S. standard of living is most detrimental to the Earth.

Andras Szollosi-Nagy, Deputy Assistant Director General of UNESCO, told the audience that while the Earth Charter is a set of new commandments, the original ten are still alright.ý He announced that sixteen volumes are being written on "sustainable development;" the first six are to be presented next week, adding that the three pillars of "sustainable development" are economic, social and environmental placed on the foundation of "ethics."

In typical New Age, Age of Aquarius form, one spokesman asked participants to close their eyes and visualize "sustainable development," concluding that each person probably had a different view, thus making it necessary to have the volumes attempting to remedy its fuzzy definition. Nonetheless, a French student attending the event proclaimed, "We have put 'sustainable development' education on the table, and we will fight for it."

The Bahai cult, always represented at UN meetings, concluded, "The speakers were all inspiring. The world needs to come together for 'sustainable development' and the Earth Charter does it."

Outlining how the Earth Charter is to be integrated into lifelong education for all, Hans van Ginkel, Chairman of the International Association of Universities (the UN University in Costa Rica) said that, we must mobilize all in education about sustainability; that's how we meet the next generation. He said that 16 million teachers must be trained and that the only way to move forward is by integrating the Earth Charter into curriculum and to link all universities based on regional bases of excellence.

The UN scheme to disseminate the Earth Charter globally in schools and in religious communities should alert spiritual leaders, elected officials,parents and educators to its expansive and sovereignty destroying agenda.

You are correct in your conclusion, but it is unnecessary to the purpose of refuting the philosophy of Deep Ecology on its own tenets and as applied to its purported objectives. To quote myself:

The most extreme proponents of isolating humans from nature are the so-called “deep ecologists.” These people urge that humans adopt a “biocentric” perspective (as opposed to an anthropocentric, or human-centered viewpoint). The purported goal of biocentricism is to incorporate all of nature into one’s perspective, to identify with all ecosystems in nature as one’s personal interest. Sadly, deep ecologists seem incapable of expressing that perspective themselves. The first three tenets of Deep Ecology, as articulated by Arne Naess and George Sessions, dialectically separate humans from nature, rendering a biocentric perspective, an impossible paradox: 1. All life has value in itself, independent of its usefulness to humans.
2. Richness and diversity contribute to life’s well-being and have value in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs in a responsible way.
The principles of Deep Ecology (there are 8) fall afoul of several constraints. First, (as they constantly remind us) humans already are an interconnected part of nature, competing for our individual benefit in our own manner as a species. Second, “Richness and diversity” are perceptions of value, important only to humans (near monoculture is a common phenomena in nature). Third, the idea that humans are responsible for maintaining a status quo among populations of existing species as a matter of “rights” is imposing a human set of values onto the results of mortal competition among species. It is a denial of dynamic equilibrium in natural selection and antithetical to the cyclical ebb and flow of populations of predators and prey.
If humans are so inherently destructive that they must be separated from nature, how could it be possible for humans to have a biocentric view? There would certainly be no hands-on opportunity to learn one. Although that might save having to expend a lot of physical effort, how would it help?
Further, these same people believe that nature is so robust and so rugged that it is fully capable of recovery without intervention, but that it is too fragile to survive our attempts to help. To decide not to take action because of the view that nature will somehow “know better” what to do, is just as much a projection of human impressions onto nature, as is the conclusion that the situation demands the investment of time and money. There is no mechanism in the process of natural selection, that implies volition on the part of nature, much less prospective reversibility.
On the other hand, humans DO exhibit prospective volition. However, if we adhere to this perspective of doing nothing, what good is preventive intervention? How would we learn to exercise it effectively and benevolently? How would we learn to reduce the impact of urban technology if we did not interact? Such a process bias toward inaction precludes even the significant probability of constructive errors.
A biocentric perspective also presumes that humans are capable of anything other than human perception. If one is busily experiencing a totality, from what perspective does one notice that?
If humans cannot assume this pan-perspective, and are oper-ating under the belief that they are inherently destructive, then why would they consider the effort to learn it of any redeeming value? Would that choice not also be corrupted by human desire? Why, then, act to prevent action?
Any action in a competitive system results in harm to something. Deep ecologists would feel distraught at the loss and guilty of the failure to prevent it. Thus, to actively seek collective dominance over people they disdain, politically forcing others into mandated inaction in order to protect themselves from risk to their personal feelings, is not only anthropo-centric; it is an egocentric view.
Perhaps that is why it seems to be so popular!
Finally, the projection of persona, spirit, or rights upon anything other than citizens is little more than a twisted democratic power play. It is a claim of an exclusive franchise to represent an artificial constituency. Maybe those plants do need protection; but who gets to decide by what means, and to what end?
A biocentric perspective projects the spirituality of being into everything. To a deep ecologist, a rock would have a rock’s spirit, a rock’s consciousness, and thus deserves civil rights equivalent to human beings, which they alone purport to represent.
This is a debilitating thing to do to one’s own mind, much less to a republic. To claim to represent the rights of rocks is to project a subjective human impression of a rock’s preferences onto rocks. What if they were wrong? Perhaps the rocks might feel more appreciated by a mineral geologist who would want to make aluminum cans out of them? Did anybody ask the rocks? You guess.
When activists of any stripe demand rights for animals, rocks, or plants, what they are really doing is demanding disproportionate representation of their interests as the self-appointed advocates representing those constituents. Unfortunately, to enforce a right requires the police power of government, the only agent so capable. Government acquires this role because it is assumed a disinter-ested arbiter of competing claims.
History suggests quite the opposite, which is why limiting the number of enforceable rights is as important to liberty as is constituting them as unalienable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.