Origins of the Green Movement

 

The “Green Movement”, one of the largest global movements in recent history. It is nothing new to anyone's ear, unless one has been in a cave their whole life. It is throughout the news, spanning the length of the Internet & invading every magazine. From the poor layman to the empowered politician, the movement's servants are found everywhere, in cities and on farms. Green this & green that, Earth friendly this & Earth friendly that; cleaners, cups, fuels & fabrics; toilet paper, diapers, coal & coffee. “Eco-friendly” is the new buzz word, the new password into friendship. One's “Carbon-footprint” is the new book cover of individuals, replacing cars, homes & clothes.

One, maybe you as well, would rightfully wonder, what is wrong with helping the environment? What is hurtful in protecting our waters? What is bad about cleaning our world?

My answer is “Nothing.” Nothing is wrong with planting a tree, nothing is wrong with saving even a flee. However, there is a 'but' in my answer. I plant gardens and choose plant-based cleaners. I like recycling and enjoy removing litter. Heck, I even just transported the laptop I am typing on via a Walgreen's recycled bag. However, I am not for the Green Movement. Rather, I am against it. 'How so' & 'why' would be one's confused questions.

Remember that saved flee? If I knew it had a disease and still saved it, have I done wrong? Yes. And this is what the Green Movement has been doing, not literally though. They having taken Eco-friendly to the extreme, to a radical pro-Earth cult so-to-speak. This cult chooses a fish over families, chooses habitat over humanity (in both senses).

President Obama is one of these taking the movement to a radical degree. He, prior & post to his election to the presidency, called for cleaner energy (clean burning coal –“Cap & Trade”– as the best example) and bluntly, without care, said that energy costs to the American people would skyrocket and have to deal with it –the families out of work & dragging from paycheck to paycheck would just have to deal with bills double in size. (I myself am experiencing a rate increase with my electric company and it has been hurting my household.)

Former Vice President Al Gore is another Eco-radical. As most know, he was the spear head for the Global Warming discussion, having a team of scientists on his payroll. He, with his anti-carbon clan, pushed a wave of Global Warming awareness through the United States, preaching from the collegian pulpit, filling the web with wisdom & producing entire movies.

But what is wrong with teaching the nation?

Nothing, so I'll do it to: I will teach you the truth that the Sun will super-nova... in two years, so go kiss your butt goodbye! ... What? I was enlightening you like Al Gore did. So what if I was lying?

This is what is wrong with Gore's radical push. He exaggerated facts, inflated data and outright lied. His whole thing was that the Earth was about to become the next Venus, having so much carbon-dioxide that the greenhouse effect would give Earth a fever. That fever was 'SOON' going to melt the polar ice caps and drown the world in a man-made deluge where Al Gore & his Mrs would be the new Mr & Mrs Noah in their super-Ark. Yeah, yeah, I was doing some exaggerating of my own. But my point remains valid, that Gore was preaching a global catastrophe looming on the horizon and, like a Jewish prophet, he was calling for people to change their evil ways.

Gore's bubble was recently popped, exposing his lies, deceit & propaganda. The Statue of Liberty is not about to be submerged, the Ozone Layer is not evaporating in the frying pan and life isn't going to choke on carbon chunks (so-to-speak).

Before his so-called 'unbiased experts' were exposed, real scientists had findings which became hidden. Gore went on & on about the shrinking Ozone Layer. However, the real findings discovered that the shrinking layer was shocking, seeming that the layer was thickening. See, the Earth was repairing, replenishing its ozone molecules (O3) through natural processes such as lightning. Scientific findings, also from those outside of the Eco-circle, likewise have shown that the global heating & rising sea levels we do see (in their minute increments) are a part of the Earth's historic cycles. Each cycle of heat & flooding was not caused by Humans and neither is this one. Am I saying that people are not pumping carbons into the atmosphere? No. We indeed are, my belching 1996 Ford Taurus & wafting cigarette being my own personal evidence. However, what the Gore garbage grabbers refuse to say is how a single volcano burps out more carbon than an entire country. I didn't see the Green Movement yelling at the Iceland volcano whose carbon cough of 2010 covered an entire continent. But I did see them screaming at trucks with large diesel engines, despite needing them to haul Eco-friendly cleaners. (If Gore was driving it, I'd bet they would have applauded...)

Another group to be discussed is P.E.T.A. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). How so? How am I about to group such a good-will organization with the above? How is protecting animals wrong? Especially when I myself have 16 fish, 4 cats, 3 rats, 2 dogs, one snake & a hermit crab in a pear tree. 'How' you say. How?

PETA is known as an animal rights group that stops mistreatment throughout the nation. That is good, I am generally for that, having done volunteer work at a local animal shelter. However, PETA does & thinks a lot which is unknown to the majority (including the majority of their supporters). They have been around for thirty years (founded in 1980). They have over two million members –over one out of every hundred people in the United States being active in their organization. They also made around thirty-four million dollars in 2009. The point is that PETA is one powerful foundation. This powerhouse, masked with the veil of righteousness & puppy-love, has a generally unknown philosophy which is not only radical, but also dangerous & inhuman.

The founder of PETA is the beautiful & seemingly compassionate Ingrid Newkirk. She is not one shy of the camera or the mic. She outwardly speaks about her mission to aid animals and prevent their harm. A noble life mission one would say. However, Newkirk keeps her deeper mission a secret. Despite the secrecy, she has, at times, let her actual ideology slip during some interviews & preachings.

“The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a human being.” That was stated by Ingrid Newkirk. That is definitely, without a doubt, a radical statement. Should I be charged for involuntarily murder when I step on a beetle? Sent to the gas-chamber when a mouse-trap snaps? Charged with theft when taking dirt from an ant colony? I guess ACORN should begin registering roaches to vote. Some of PETA's actions are indeed comically radical. One year, they protested an Aquarium. Why? The Aquarium was neglecting the octopus? No. It was mistreating the dolphins? No. Rather, they were selling sushi for charity. PETA's beef, per-say, was that the sushi (dead fish) were being sold and eaten before the eyes of living fish. What a deplorable travesty! One can't help but laugh. A worthy charity didn't get funds so that some fish wouldn't have to see their unrecognizable brethren being devoured by monsters. Cattle Ranchers beware, you better not eat a burger in front of your cows... Despite being radical, the above statement by Newkirk is far from her worst –let alone far from the most concrete window into her mind.

Would she dare to insult people, innocent people? Dare she would. “We feel animals have the same rights as a retarded human child.” I take care of the mentally disabled ('retards' to Newkirk) and find the statement extremely offensive. But even in the pinpointed category of comparisons, this is not the most offensive she has said. Rather it is this: “Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses.” I am Jewish and many of my family died in the Nazi extermination camps from gas, starvation, medical experimentation & torture. That is so hurtful, racist & inhuman, it is almost unbelievable. To compare the Holocaust to the butchering of chickens is incomparable –well, not to Ingrid Newkirk. This racism of putting Jews beneath chickens is still not the worst, nor the most revealing. Let us bring her true will in life to light... and also that of PETA's elite.

“Humans have grown like cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the planet.” You can already see her pro-Earth agenda leaking out. But it gets better. There is also an anti-human ideology in Newkirk & PETA itself. A member stated in 1993 to GQ Magazine that “Homelessness drives me crazy! I take responsibility for everything that happens to me. Everyone can pull themselves up. I have more sympathy for animals because they don't deserve anything that happens to them. They're innocent.” I guess the man that was fired & can't find work deserves to live in rags and the psychologically damaged woman who can't hold a job due to the mentally ruining rape is guilty as sin. PETA spokesman Dan Matthews said that “People bring diseases on themselves. [They should] avoid getting the disease in the first place.” I assume I should had quit my job & lose my home instead of getting that Staph-infection last year. And he's right, I made sure to get that crippling infection! This inhuman talk is also propagated by Ingrid herself: “Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd (PETA) be against it.” This is part of Newkirk's (PETA's) anti animal testing agenda. I myself would be against animal experimentation if it were not for all the good it accomplishes; aiding in the understanding & curing of neurological disorders, cancers, diseases, etc.

I want to go deeper into this animal testing issue, but first I want to show a random hypocrisy found with Ingrid Newkirk. She has a pet dog, with which she poses for publicity photos. And yet she says that “Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Funny; not just because she has a pet, but also because without animal domestication most animals would have to suffer & face injury or death having to fight for food, territory & mates. And on hypocrisy, is it possible that a PETA elite uses animal tested products while protesting animal testing? Yup, it is.

PETA's Senior Vice President Marybeth Sweetland uses insulin for her diabetes which was produced via animal testing. Am I saying she should abstain and die? No. Rather she is a blatant hypocrite; not because she uses it, but instead because of what she says about it. In 1990, Sweetland did an interview with Glamour magazine and discussed the issue: “I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products – and I have no qualms about it... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin.” Well, nothing wrong so far, but she goes on: “I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.” There is that whole radical-left Greater-Good crap. The Al Gore 'don't use your gas guzzling cars while I fly in my private jets' thing. The 'I can do it but you can't' attitude. That Greater-Good thing is why the richest of the rich want Communism. The people share their wealth while the leaders get the power & riches. They want to be the Stalins over the people. The same is for the PETA elite: 'Give all your money to our cause so we and animals can eat while you starve.

“Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt... We are not here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We're here to hold the radical line.” If this statement by Ingrid doesn't prove their radicalism, I don't know what does.

Okay, so PETA is an organization of left-wing radicals. So what is so important about including a group radically inclined towards animals? The importance is just how far their radicalism goes. They are not just pro-animal (and so, pro-Earth), they are anti-morality (religious morals) & pro-violence... yes, violence.

Religious morals, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, include the moral wall of being clothed. PETA launched their catapult at that wall, just like the 60's Earth-nut hippies did before them, prancing around naked through the forests.

PETA produced an ad campaign against animal fur clothing & products, something I too am against unless the animal was used for food. However, it is how they protest it that is disturbing. This campaign consisted of billboard ads with a recurring message. The ads showed people totally nude (despite having an arm over the breast or it being of the back) such as model Christy Turlington & Steve-O from the show Jackass. The ads housed the catchphrase “I'd rather go naked than wear fur.” These provocative images were there for children to bear witness to.

Another campaign was known as the “Lettuce Ladies.” The “Go Vegan” ladies wore nothing but lettuce. Not a lettuce dress, but rather a lettuce thong & bra... and that's all. Did I mention these living advertisements (pun intended) were in public? This campaign, just as alcohol, car & other ads, used sex for their attention grabbing devise.

The 1940's were a hallmark era for religious values; wives in dresses, husbands at work & children hitting the books. Whether real or not, that decade is well known as being the stereotype of morality. And because of this knowledge, PETA went straight at it like a tree-hugger towards a lumber-mill. They released another ad, this time against the eating of meat in general (i.e. pro-vegan). It was obviously aimed at the younger audience. The drawn ad shows a woman stabbing a rabbit with a butcher knife, blood flying, with the caption reading “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” (Emphasis theirs.) The woman was depicted in the classic 40's manner; clothing, hair & all. The semi-hidden anti-morals agenda is there, just look for yourself.

Despite the majority of the discussion being a rant against the Green Movement's lies, immorality & deceit, that is not my main point here. Yes, their lies & other actions are an issue, but far from the main worry. It is, however, directly connected to the issue. The modern Green Movement is stronger than ever before –by far. At first it was a people's movement of penniless Hippies who could do nothing but plant some trees in the nude. Now its power stretches to the very Presidency of the United States of America. Their ideology is taught in schools by ex-Hippie Liberal teachers and Hollywood, with its Left-face swing, makes pro-'Goreology' films such as “The Day After Tomorrow.” Their willingness to spew out millions to billions of dollars for their cause, their apparent wish to alter details towards their side & their enemy or friend only attitude shows just how far they are willing to go for their Greenery per-say.

So we see their lies, immorality, propaganda, etc., but what of their violence?

No, I am not speaking of PETA's support & funding for the euthanasia of innumerable animals around the U.S., though many would find it horrid & hypocritical.

As with everything, the known natural law of cause & affect, these ideas –this movement– had a start. Thankfully, it is not a track which has been ripped up and is so untraceable as with most new ideas. This movement does not date back to the sixties, not to the forties, not even back to the eighteen hundreds. Rather, this “Go Earth!” attitude can easily be followed all the way back to the BCE's –over two thousand years and counting.

So what is this start, this beginning, which can be traced from then to now?

That beginning, the Green-Movement's 'first cause', is a little man by the name of Plato (maybe you have heard of him). Most know him for his great work “Republic”, others know him for his extensive influence which spanned throughout religions & nations alike. However, there are many lesser known ideas of his which have been just as influential. (I put “great” in italics because his Republic is anti-marriage, pro-abortion & anti-mentally disabled.)

Born in a chaotic Greece in 428 BCE, the world was still ripe for new schools of thought, and he indeed brought one: “Platonism” and then “Neoplatonism.”

So what was this little known concept by Plato?

That theological / philosophical idea is deemed the “World Soul”, “Anima Mundi” in Latin.

One of Plato's works is his “Timaeus”, a lengthy discourse. It discusses the nature of the universe, man, their reasons, theories pertaining thereto, etc. In it, Plato talks about the “world”, though he actually means the entire universe. When debating and discussing on the “world”, Plato states the following:

Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.

Here Plato bluntly states that the universe is not only a living being, but a conscious being. We can compare his definition to that of our own bodies. We are a living, thinking being which has billions of living cells dwelling within. Plato, unlike many other Greek philosophers, believed the “soul” as immortal. However, Plato was NOT saying here that this universal soul was God. Rather, Plato believed that God was a solo being above & beyond this World Soul. Despite Plato's own explanations & beliefs, his new concept was later twisted & altered into new, though easily related, ideas.

The ancient Greeks already had plenty of mythology to see the world (as the Earth) as alive. They indeed felt that the planet itself was a goddess, Gaia. But Plato was talking about the universe rather than the lone chuck of rock we stand on.

Just two hundred years later, Plato's World Soul went from a philosophical debate conclusion to a theological point.

A man named Zeno, born on the beautiful island of Cyprus, was the founder of one of the most influential philosophical schools in human history: “Stoicism.”

One of Zeno's beliefs, virtually unknown to modern fans, was theism; a strong belief in God. However, Zeno didn't see God in the old sense. Rather, Zeno knew God in the World Soul sense. Zeno flat out called God “Nature”. His influence eventually went as far as to change the Greek creation myth of the start being a chaotic mess out of the darkness to Nature (a conscious being) causing that needed mess.

With Zeno, God went from invisible and beyond anything material to matter itself. God went from bodiless to the universe being his flesh. But, as with every idea, it was bound to evolve.

Outside of Platonism, the World Soul split. Not into yin & yang (though one could put it that way), but rather into two frames of thinking. On the one end of the spectrum, the universal soul was slung into a school called “Hermeticism.”

Hermeticism is a philosophical / theological school supposedly founded by a legendary Egyptian sage called Hermes (Thrice-Great Hermes). In reality it is a Hellenistic religious school founded in Alexandria in the first centuries BCE. They are very anti-material and pro-spirit, influencing the Christian Gnostics of the early CEs to a great extent. Despite this, they state in their bible, the “Corpus Hermeticum”, that “The Kosmos (Universe) is ever-living; for it is made immortal by the Father, who is eternal...” This thought in Hermeticism was radically changed in the modern Hermetic order (The Golden Dawn).

This end of the split held the universal soul, but in its 'universal form'. They continued the Platonic form in the sense of the universe having a permeating soul, force or whatever. Aleister Crowley, the most infamous occultist in history, also held this idea through his new deities of “Nuit” & “Hadit”, two beings which were throughout the universe. Despite being influenced by the Hermeticists, the Gnostics departed from the idea and just believed in a being which ruled the universe from within, but was not omnipresent in it however. How this end went from neutral to bad will be discussed in a bit.

Then there is the other end of the spectrum. The World Soul went from the universe's to the World's, literally; the planetary soul. The Greek earth-goddess became God in general. A geo-centric universe took on a new meaning. The earliest example of this radical change from universe to earth was in Stoicism.

The immediate successor to their founder Zeno was Cleanthes. He went as far as to suggest the prosecution of a guy named Aristarchus. What for? Murder? No. Theft? No. Blasphemy then? Yes, but not that he said 'damn Zeus' or something. Instead, Aristarchus had proposed that the Sun be deemed the center of the universe. This earth downplaying stance boiled Cleanthus' blood.

But, as said before, Greece was fertile for a pro-Earth seed. Their earth goddess, mother goddess and goddesses of the lands, plants, seas & fruits were already well sewn into their minds. However, Zeus, Hermes & Apollo stood firmly in their way. How could the Earth & its divinity be seen as the highest when Zeus was strongly seen as the mightiest & head of the gods?

The pro-Earth people, the cult of the land, were in luck. The world was in a time of change. Alexander the Great of the 300's BCE had connected the west & east. Ideas went from one end of the world to the other. People loved the influx of new textiles & arts. And with the enjoyment of the new, people wanted that new stimuli to extend into all avenues of life, including religion. The years switching from BCE to CE; philosophers became excepted, religious change gained interest and cultural lines became blurred. One has to remember that before this time, new ideas were something to be hated; Socrates being tried & executed is a great example.

In this time of change, religious & philosophical cults became the flavor of the age so-to-speak. Mithras, Isis, Zurvan, Pythagoras, Demeter, they all went from nobodies to names of popularity and power. Mithras went from a minor deity in Persia to the favorite god of the mighty Roman legions. Isis went from the Egyptian goddess behind Osiris to a goddess found in every home belonging to one of wealth. Zurvan went from a Persian afterthought to the main god of their pantheon. Pythagoras went from influencer of thinkers to the deified head of a theology. And then there's Demeter, the Greek goddess of the fields, the crops & human marriage to an extent (ironic for a goddess that shacked up with every god while lacking a husband).

Though all of the Greek deities had their assigned place in the crowded pantheon and all had intriguing myths, Demeter became a special character. Changes in religious pantheons were rare, happening only around every several hundred years. The last time the Greek line changed was at its beginnings when the Titans (Uranus, Kronos, Atlas, etc) were exchanged for the Olympians (Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, etc). Demeter got to be the focal-point of the new change.

The “Eleusinian Mysteries” was Demeter's stepping stone to the high throne. The “Fields of Elysium” was, generally speaking, the Greek heaven for the rare favored soul. The 'mysteries' themselves are well named seeming that they mostly remain a mystery. However, we know enough to state from snitching followers & historians what they were generally about and how they spread their influence.

The mysteries were based off of the myth involving Demeter's comely daughter Persephone. As a quick run-through, she was goddess-napped by Hades (god of Hades, the dark & dismal dwelling place of the dead), raped & made Hell-Queen –every six months of the year for that matter. Anyway, with this, the mysteries were a spiritual & symbolic experience for the initiate to pass from life into death and be saved from Hell; purified of ignorance, sin (the Greek version of sin) and, most importantly, mortality. The people occupying the group's highest position were even said to be promised the gift of divine powers in the hereafter. But this pre-Christianity idea of salvation focused not on the goddess that went through the chaos of being violated, but rather her grieving mother Demeter. Demeter was already considered a powerful being, having the ability to ruin the earth's fertility to the point of scaring the dung out of Zeus himself. But this mystery religion, this cult, raised Demeter to the position of highest & only; a monotheistic Earth-goddess religion just like the Romans transforming Jupiter (Jove) into the Hindu Brahma, manifesting as all the other deities. Through this stance was the idea that if you hurt or depraved the land, you blasphemed against Demeter herself.

The idea of a sole goddess, goddess of the Earth, quickly spread like a fire through the Arizona hillside. To prove just how intrusive it was, let me show you something.

Judaism would seem like the last religion on God's green Earth (pardon the pun) that would allow influence from such a cult. Number one, it was very anti-Goddess. Number two, it was strongly apposed to foreign influence –i.e. the Josiah Reform, the Maccabee Revolt & the First Jewish-Roman War to name three of a hundred. Despite this, the Eleusinian Mysteries leaked in –well, snuck in.

In around the second century, a Gnostic-Jew by the name of Justin wrote a Philosophical & Theological work scholars call “Baruch.” In it are four main players, God of course, Elohim (Hebrew for God) as a God-like being which created the universe, then we have Baruch, Elohim's main go-to angel. The fourth player is a surprise. “Eden” is her name, a deified garden, land & Earth. Just as most goddesses were hypersexual femme-fatales, Eden had sex with Elohim by being lusty & desirable –mothering twelve angels. In the end, Eden is credited with the creation of mankind and Elohim looks like an idiotic thieving deity out of a feminist's dream. Eden gets to be the highest being of the material universe and so, master-ess over our lives.

This quickly shows its speedy spread. And, of course, its influence on polytheistic faiths was unprecedented. Goddess / Earth cults (fertility religions) were the first major beliefs within man's mind and it revived with a vengeance. There is little to no doubt that the Pro-Earth / goddess faiths (belief systems) are coming back into society, replacing traditional beliefs & values. For indeed, America's faiths of Judaism & Christianity are incompatible with the ideas they replaced all those years ago. Maybe those old plant cults are trying to replay history with a vice-versa ending; but you can be the judge of that.

Welcome to the history of the Green Movement.

More by this Author


4 comments

American Romance profile image

American Romance 5 years ago from America

In relation the feds said the Spotted Owl was endangered and stopped logging in Arizona and NM, (costing 19000 jobs) and now of course we have the largest forest fire in history and I have not heard one single word about the spotted owl, nor all those trees that could have went to good use but are now simply destroyed while 19000 people are jobless, We must use common sense, When I was a child you could see smog over most towns early in the morning or when the wind wasn't blowing, it is not like that now, .............just how clean can we get? Maybe enough to run all jobs overseas to escape nonsense regulations!


BukowskiBabe profile image

BukowskiBabe 5 years ago from Somewhere in the middle of it all. Author

Well put. I used to always say that today's environmentalists would step over (or on) a dying person to get to some trapped animal.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

Environmentalists have absolutely no interest in doing more harm than good. Pollution has a cost - it is as simple as that. The only real interest is in shifting the burden to those responsible for the pollution.

You seem to be seriously misinformed about the science of global warming (your volcano claims are delusional fantasy). Al Gore isn't a scientist.

You can't take fringe groups and say they represent the core beliefs of a movement. The heart of the American green movement can be traced through the stewardship and conservation advocated by Thoreau, Marsh, Muir, Carson, and Leopold. Their work is practical and thoughtful, with a deep respect for all life, including, and especially, human life.

PETA won't teach you about environmentalism any more than the Phelps family will teach you about Christianity.


BukowskiBabe profile image

BukowskiBabe 5 years ago from Somewhere in the middle of it all. Author

Junkseller:

First off, this article was about the origins of the Green Movement (hence the name) and the radical wing of thus. This was not a scientific article.

I said over & over throughout the article that I was speaking of the minority of Environmentalists and how that minority was pushing “radical” agendas. I said how I was against what that radical wing was doing.

And it is that minority radical end which is leading the charge. That small group are the heads. Like I said in the article, I am pro-environmental protection and try to do my part.

To say (if you implying 'all') that all environmentalists are absolutely not interested in doing more harm than good is to be a very big “Greater-Good”-ologist. For putting the wishes of a small local fish over farmers, families & the harvest (which in-part goes to the hungry & homeless) is indeed doing more harm than good in my book. Also, did I not talk of the PETA sushi incident which was another incident of more harm than good –for what good did it do for the now traumatized fish watching their brethren– as all it did was impede funds for a charity.

I never said that Al Gore was a scientist, rather I stated that he had scientists working for him.

With the volcano issue: It was a bland & broad point, well, not even a point, rather more of a comic antidote. As I said, this was not a scientific paper. For if it was, I would have fully explained how volcanoes spew forth 255 million tons of carbon per year (minus spontaneous major eruptions). I would say how they emit chemicals that destroy ozone molecules. I would show how the Sulfur Aerosols they give out which cool the atmosphere does not mean they are Al Gore's buddies. I would show Volcanic ash made of grains less than .063mm remain in the atmosphere and aid in global warming. I would explain how the Stratosphere heats via Volcanic eruptions. I would show the related issues such as the tens of thousands of people died in 1783 thousands of miles away via volcanic toxic clouds of sulfurous gases. Such as the super methane-burps that would do more damage to the planet than we could ever dream. I would say more, but I don't know anything...

Thank you for the comment though.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working