Money, are people blinded by it?

[t0p]

If you want to help the environment you must target the wealthy, those who have in millions (and those who pollute with their factories and in other ways).

But that is the group he's targeting. He lives in Western Europe (I assume, since he spoke of one product costing 20p more than another). His parents are amongst the richest people in the world. As are the majority of this forum's members.

And that's the crazy thing. All those people from North America and Europe moan how green stuff costs more than non-green. Of course it does! It's always cheaper to manufacture stuff if you don't care about the impact it has on the environment. But us Europeans and North Americans can generally afford to pay this premium. We just don't want to. We want to carry on living in the manner to which we have become accustomed. And the rest of the world can go hang.

[MikeTheC]

The other thing is that there is a bit of chicken-and-egg here, as with many things in life. No doubt the "green" products have far fewer sales, thus resulting in higher per-unit pricing. There needs to be more tangible benefit to the consumer than this nebulous "we're harming the environment" stuff that keeps being bandied about.

As a kind of parallel (in a sense, but not a 100% literal one) look at the adoption rate of Linux vs. the continued usage rate of Windows. The benefits of running Linux are *very* tangible, and yet we don't see throngs of people flocking to Linux from Windows.

Apple, on the other hand, is a prime example of how to get people to leave Microsoft. In the relatively short period of time they've had a "modern OS" product they have shifted a TON of people (even though this is still a tiny percentage in the grand scheme of things) to Mac OS X and Apple's other products. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here?

[ramnarayan]

In case someone wants to know how the "other side" lives

see this off Ubuntu but kinda on topic link
http://internationalrivers.org/en/bl...an-pedro-river

and see how it links up and to who all

[mynameinc]

And mynameinc's opinion is a humorous example of the messed-up priorities some people have, which will destroy the earth and everything on it unless those people re-evaluate their values.

Mynameinc pretends that the situation is simple: for instance, he claims it's a straight choice between deforestation or no food for the Brazilian farmer. But reality is not an either/or situation. In the example of the Brazilian farmer, there are obvious alternatives like mixed-use of land or changing one's occupation to do something less toxic to the environment; and there are less obvious solutions too.

Unfortunately, mynameinc is a good example of the selfish majority. He wants to maintain his current way of life at all costs. It's that kind of attitude that will bring on the doom of humankind. Fortunately the earth is an adaptable system - once we're all dead and gone the environment will survive and heal, and everything will be rosy again. When we're out of the picture.

"Changing one's occupation"? You think there are jobs floating around in second- and third- world countries? There AREN'T. In many communities, the only way to live is to farm.

If the earth is an adaptable system, why does it matter if we destroy it? You seem to think it is such a priority, but you say the environment will simply heal.

How will destroying the environment bring the doom of Homo sapiens sapiens? Homo sapiens sapiens has weathered a lot worse; and so has the environment. You live your life in a dream world, thinking you can do something to 'save the environment', and the 'selfish majority' and I will live comfortably, doing no harm to anyone.

And about the industrial workers in third-world countries who are 'harming the environment'? Put them out of work? Let them and their families starve? I'm sure, since you're not part of the 'selfish majority', you would allow that to save a tree.

How you, and the rest of the world that's not part of the 'selfish majority', justify placing the 'environment' above humans, living people, your peers, is beyond my grasp.

[mynameinc]

But that is the group he's targeting. He lives in Western Europe (I assume, since he spoke of one product costing 20p more than another). His parents are amongst the richest people in the world. As are the majority of this forum's members.

And that's the crazy thing. All those people from North America and Europe moan how green stuff costs more than non-green. Of course it does! It's always cheaper to manufacture stuff if you don't care about the impact it has on the environment. But us Europeans and North Americans can generally afford to pay this premium. We just don't want to. We want to carry on living in the manner to which we have become accustomed. And the rest of the world can go hang.

Guess what? Because someone in North America or Europe makes more than someone in a third-world country, that doesn't mean they can afford it. My parents had middle-class jobs--insurance agent and teacher--and I can remember times when US$0.33 (sorry I was confused on the conversion rates) wasn't in the bank to pay for an 'environmentally friendly' towel (and my family doesn't spend a lot of money--we save as much as possible). Think about all of the blue-collar workers, and other middle-class people. Fact is, things aren't so great like they are on paper.

Hospital bills after an accident, house repairs, lose something, burglary--life comes at you fast, and things cost money. It helps to have the financial cushion to fall on, and buying 'environmentally friendly' products reduces that cushion.

[ramnarayan]

Am assuming you are on the forum because you are an Ubuntu Linux user, which should point to the fact that Ubuntu is built not just around a technology but around a philosophy on many people doing many small things and many bigs things and a lot of what they (we) do has nothing to do with money. We see a sense in this "free" system, it gives us choices, some of which are still painful, but we choose anyway. Still the majority users of computers are Windows users - why ?? not because its the better system but because its "marketed, sold and percieved" that way

"Changing one's occupation"? You think there are jobs floating around in second- and third- world countries?

Wonder why you are correlating the II and 3rd world countries with environmental problems, its the capitalist west and so called first world countries that are the major sources of environmental problems

There AREN'T. In many communities, the only way to live is to farm.

Farming - for subsistence, is still a viable occupation, provided such farmers don't have their land usurped by mining corporations who have tunovers the size of large countries, or by foresty projects to fuel the paper hunger or by chocolate, tea, coffee plantations or by biofuel farms. Or have their water diverted to large factories and cities. Or are in the midst of a war because they are sitting on top of some mineral and are inconveniently in the way.

Here unemployment maybe hidden but people still have productive lives and a supportive community that does try to enable. Something that urban areas do not offer.

If the earth is an adaptable system, why does it matter if we destroy it? You seem to think it is such a priority, but you say the environment will simply heal.

I think he said something to the effect that if humans disappear the environment will stabilize. So, if thats what you want, why not earn that extra buck by selling a subsidized hummer to a gas guzzling rich you know who and encourage more people to fight a few more wars so that Oil is a few cents cheaper

How will destroying the environment bring the doom of Homo sapiens sapiens? Homo sapiens sapiens has weathered a lot worse; and so has the environment. You live your life in a dream world, thinking you can do something to 'save the environment', and the 'selfish majority' and I will live comfortably, doing no harm to anyone

.


Sure folks out to save the environment are living in a dream world - unfortunately these dreams are a nightmare - trying to figure how people can be so blind to the obvious.

And about the industrial workers in third-world countries who are 'harming the environment'? Put them out of work? Let them and their families starve? I'm sure, since you're not part of the 'selfish majority', you would allow that to save a tree.

Again 3rd world countries, maybe its time you realise that its *first* world people who are, at this point of time, being knocked off their jobs. Third world countries still have some sense of reality and know where their food and water comes from and that messing around is a big mistake. Also its few Ist world apes who live in the 3rd world who are dictating the current economic and political agenda. Which is why we are in this big hole

Second how or why does buying environmentally friendly products mean losing jobs.

there are success stories from many places in the world - aimed at "saving the environment"

check out the California model in the following document
http://internationalrivers.org/files...yFactSheet.pdf
and another
http://internationalrivers.org/files...ams.Energy.pdf

How you, and the rest of the world that's not part of the 'selfish majority', justify placing the 'environment' above humans, living people, your peers, is beyond my grasp.

Unfortunately your view is the narrow view, the belligerent view, the head in the sand view. There are people "like us" who view humanity as being too dependent on an healthy environment to know that the only reason we need to do everything to save the environment is so that humanity can survive.

For further understanding i would like to recommend these two movies
An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

and
Who Killed the Electric Car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Kil...lectric_Car%3F

It will show you what the problem really is, to an extent.

[s3a]

Why not buy environmetally friendly things at least once and not make it routine behaviour? (to those making the argument that little change adds up)

[Xylar Wasterend]

I came across these not too long ago. Rings quite true on "money" -- it's not the money itself that should be the goal, rather the object itself. Money being just the medium, the energy used for transfer.

Politically, economically, and historically, it doesn't take much looking into to see "money" as an artificial limiter meant to keep things restricted and a lack-based lifestyle in place.

Abundance without money?????
Don't ask for money.
Money as debt.

Money has to be one of the most misunderstood aspects of humanity. The reason for this is quite simple and that is everyone has been programmed from the earliest age that money is required for everything.

There are several considerations here. First of all money is a human construct. It is nothing more than a method of exchange. What most people do not realise is that 96% of the money in the workd does noe actually exist in physical terms at all; it is all electronic; bits and bystes on a computer system that goverments create whenever they need to.

From a Universal perspective money is simply Energy. It flows into your life and flows out of your life. This is why if you are reluctant to spend money you will also block money from flowing into your life. In order to receive you have to spend. This most importantly includes giving to others for example worthy causes. Our attitude towards money and in particular giving and recieving is absolutely fundamental, as is having a "wealth consciousness".

As to the main aspect of this question: it is true that we should never ask for money. The Universe simply does not recognise the concept of "money". To understand this it is necessary to understand how the Universe works. The Universe is Energy; conscious, intelligent Energy. Notice that I capitalise the word "Energy". I do this because Energy is exactly the same as "God", "The Source", "The First Cause" often known as "Spirit". We attract "things" into our life by the use of Mind, again andother word for "God", and specifically by the use of the imagination, emotion, and feelings.

The Universe is infinitely abundant. What humans think is big such as a mansion, a castle perhaps or a large boat is totally trivial and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The Universe can manifest a castle just as easily as a tent; it is only limited by Mind.

Again; "money" is a human construct that is not recognised by the Universe. Before "money" was invented the Universe was still manifesting based upon the thoughts of the Mind's of humans.

In terms of attracting our greatest wishes, desires, needs etc. we therefore have to use the power of our Minds; not the illusion of money. Yes, very often it will initially arrive in the form of money but that is not for us to decide; that is for the infinite intelligence of the Universe to decide from its infinite perspective of seeing every possible perspective. Things arrive in all sorts of unexpected ways which you might never have thought of.

So in terms of attraction, decide what you wish for, sk for it, attract it and be grateful for it. This full process is detailed in my book.

Now as to the question of why I charge for my book the answer is very simple; value. There is a perception that anything that is free is without value, and from the feedback I have received and still receive there is no one who believes my book is without value. If I gave it away for free people would think it has no value and therefore the information contained therein is valueless. The important thing to remember here is that the book is within the reach of everyone. if you cannot afford to pay for the book and wish to have it, the Universe will deliver it to you plain and simple. I did not write the book for profit; I wrote it because I was inspired to do so from inner sources as a service to mankind. This is not something I put together in a couple of weeks; I dedicated 2 years of my life to it.

I realise that grasping these concepts is not easy. But "money" enslaves people and causes misery. If you are an open channel and an expression of The Source, and do not contract yourself with "worry", then abundance will flow into your life.

Money has got to be one of the biggest sticking points of all This is because money has become such an integral aspect of physical life that it has become difficult for people to grasp how it is possible to obtain anything without it.

As I mentioned in another post, very often that which you are atrracting will indeed initially arrive in the form of money, but not always and it is not our decision. When we utilise our powers as deliberate creators the Universe requires physical channels to deliver our wishes into the physical world and that means through the Minds of people. Keep in mind that we are all one, all aspects of the same infinite intelligence to who we are all connected; The Source, Who knows everything from every perspective and can "re-organise" everything necessary accordingly. I realise that this is a difficult truth to grasp when the common belief is that everything revolves around "money".

So yes; The Source knows that money exists, because money is an aspect of the Energy of the Universe of which we are all a part. But that is all money really is, Energy, which flows into our lives and out again.

The important thing to keep in mind when attracting your desires is to not tell "God" how to deliver. "God" is inflinitely intelligent and always responds to our wishes. Where most people fail is not in the asking but in the receiving. We have to be in vibrational harmony with that which we are receiving otherwise we cannot receive. It is not sufficient to ask, repeat affirmations to visualise etc., it is cricial to be in vibrational harmony with that which we are attracting otherwise it will not be delivered.

So in summary, yes God "knows" about money, but when we are attracting things into our lives it is for God to decide how to deliver.