Earth Needs Balance, Too

MON., MAR. 1, 1999, 6:50 AM
FARM, STUDY

Here it is, a cool Monday morning, and you are here for a Teaching, as “unusual”. As you know, you rarely come for this “treat” on Monday or Tuesday, but I don’t approve of that as a pattern. So… welcome to Our “classroom” on this second day of the week… and the first day of the month which shall usher in Spring.

I have called you to a better balance in your life, one that makes for a neater place to be. Yesterday you read Brown’s articles… and other shorter pieces… from Worldwatch, and, as you’ll see, My comments on these global happenings will also be a call for better balance… of life and of human activities.

You find it difficult to achieve a neater, more attractive balance here, for it mostly depends on you, your use of time and energy, and the motivation to do what We both want, as against desires just “to be…” Perhaps this week will see some change… after this commendable “start.”

I agree with Brown that there is an increasing imbalance here in the earth, and, in contrast to that of which I’ve just spoken, you can do little to affect this approaching “problem” (As you know, I’m not big on problem-solving, or even in calling something a “problem,” but this earth situation can truly be called a problem. However, the solutions seem draconian, and not compatible with many of your Western values. My “problem”: should I intervene in some ways?… and, if so, how?.. and if so, when?

One central aspect of the dilemma: I have encouraged high value on human life. But now human numbers continue to grow, with much desire and capacity to extend life… prevent death (for some time, at least). Added to this is a value that you Western folk have encouraged: live not only longer, but better… easier… with more “things”… using less human energy.

Oh, you do have some fledgling programs to reuse and recycle rather than just “throw away”, but there still is much waste… that must go “somewhere.” Electricity, which is very useful, I admit, is generated using nuclear energy, but then the nuclear waste must go “somewhere,” so that it doesn’t adversely affect human life. The sale of automobiles is excessive, certainly a prime example of “the new is better.”

Yes, there are some movements to utilize solar energy and wind power, and, of course, I approve of these… except as they are meant to be means to maintain this lavish lifestyle.

But you did note that in that same issue there was an article telling of the capacity of microorganisms to mutate and adapt to the medications designed to control and kill them. It is an example of “survival of the fittest” – the “strong” are those few “bugs” that are not killed or controlled, that then go on to reproduce mightily and cause what you call infection or disease.

I see this as part of a good balance, even as it threatens human life. (Isn’t it interesting that, once again, the hospital, designed to restore and prolong life, becomes the dangerous place because of the accumulation of microorganisms that resist human attempts to dominate.) The challenge for you Americans, which you, personally, have already accepted (at least as a start) is to live life more simply, thus reducing the waste (which always must go “somewhere”) AND developing more acceptance of death as an increasing (yes!) balance to life.

At Christian funerals there is much affirmation of the continuation of life, in the spirit. I tell you that bodily death is just a transition to actually a more “normal” life for your spirit. Earth life, in a body, can be interesting and, importantly, is a potential means of spiritual growth, but it is only one form of life. And, as you’ll finally re-see, a rather odd one.