The Ecological Dilemma

SAT., JUNE 25, 1988, 5:46 AM
DOWNTOWNER, KALAMAZOO

The theme for this meeting is a mighty one. The term “healing” implies a condition of hurt or illness, followed by a return to wholeness and wellness. The foci are two – the individual person and the world. This morning I shall speak mainly about the latter – the planet earth, My creation.

Because I have been teaching you for over nine years what I tell you this morning will not be new. I directed you to come to this meeting, but not because you would receive all new information. What you have heard, and what you have thought accordingly, are, to some extent, reinforcement of what I have previously taught. Today I shall focus on the central dilemma. If there are opportunities to voice this, even today, do so, o son.

The basic dilemma is: too much for this small planet. Now when you see clear blue skies, as you did in driving here, and miles and miles of relatively uninhabited land the diagnosis “too much” seems excessive and premature. Oh, it is a bit premature, but I would have humans prevent disaster rather than experiencing it directly.

Humans are reproducing at alarming rates for health of all to be attained or continued. For social and economic reasons people concentrate in cities and then want services and facilities that are difficult to provide for such numbers. As has ever been the case, blessings of Mine have been “over-used,” and consequences result, because of the way I have created and maintain this earth. Just as there were consequences from disobeying My prohibition in the Garden, so there are consequences from increased reproduction, medical and public health measures, and desires for a better life.

The ecological dilemma is, simply, that all that is desired cannot be, given this planet. The desires for more humans, which are understandable in families that seem to be able to provide, are unsustainable IF… the standard of living, including the health and medical care, of your culture is to be the goal of all. The reason: this standard of living, which is high entropy, creates waste and this must be part of this “global village.” Have you ever envisioned the “dump” in the Garden of Eden… where the waste of human living would be gathered? Would there be a need for such? Not if the population were minimal, and there were no desire for a “better life.”

Economic growth seems so necessary and so desirable. More people can be well nourished and housed, and can receive medical care as needed, throughout life. And, desirably, there is money left over for recreation and luxuries. What a dream! All of this, for everyone, with no consequences. All public services would be provided, but minimal taxes would be paid… and yet public servants would also share in the bounty. Ah, Me. It is sad when dreams cannot come true.

Another aspect of the ecological dilemma is that if there is to be some more equitable sharing of the resources necessary for “the good life” your culture must have less, because it now has way more than its share. One choice is to fight over these resources and use them up quickly and then be forced to a lower living standard. Another choice is to voluntarily limit use, so that resources last longer, and the transition is more gradual.

How do I respond to the faith that science and technology can develop more efficient ways of utilizing resources, all symbolized by the computer? You must know that I see this as a possible, but probably a vain, hope. Yes, it is possible, if scientific resources were focused on this task. The space shuttle symbolizes the true focus: money and resources spent on something that can be sustained only at the expense of basic necessities for many people… for the silly desire to be propelled off of the earth (when this happens so naturally at the end of each life).