Festival Community
This website is using cookies to. By clicking 'OK', you agree with our cookie policy. More about this.



"Possession" responsible. Or better: PROTECTION CHARGE

It has been observed for some years, the emergence of an increasing number of NGOs that receive animals wandering the streets, giving them care and then making them available for adoption. People who create these organizations have a good heart, an ethical stance to worry about helpless, hostages and objectification of indifference provided by humans. But just as these NGOs proliferate, so does the number of animals abandoned on the streets every day. So what is the solution to this problem?

Normally, the appearance of a pet puppy, be it a cat, a dog or any other kind, fascinates humans. At this age, they are even toy to look as if they were "stuffed animals". Children do not take the neck, never cease to stroke his hair, playing with his new friends. However, these "cuteness" grow very quickly. As adults, animals begin to behave more relaxed, quieter, no longer so fond of play and no longer look more like "stuffed animals". It is precisely from there that human beings, considered their "owners" (replace the word now and then, for TUTORS, due to the fact that no living being owns another), become more careless: lead them to walk less often, leave them more days without bathing, sometimes forget their vaccinations and veterinary care, and even to change their water, or even to put food for them. When it's holiday season and want to travel, begin to think that animals are a hindrance, an obstacle, a PROBLEM!

Well, have you ever wondered if, when we were baby, our parents treat us with all the love and affection, and when we grew up, we simply consider an obstacle, a problem in their lives and, therefore, simply abandon us the streets, such as we humans are doing to animals??

What is wrong in the above story reported is just the kind of relationship that humans have kept animals. A list of objectification, in which human beings want simply heal their emotional / affective, remedied immediately by his loneliness and lack of use - yes, right, USE! - Of other living beings (animals) which, remember, not dependent on us, HUMANS, TO BE HAPPY OR feel full. Thus, animals are relegated by humans, the mere condition of a slave.

It is quite easy to corroborate what I have just quoted the last paragraph, the human being from the earliest times, only want to take some sort of advantage in its relationship with other beings (and even the Earth !!!). An example is the relationship that man began with the wolves. The wolves began to help humans in their hunting, primitive times, and, in turn, earned the game pieces as a reward. However, the larger pieces remained with the man. That is, from the earliest times, man / animal is unequal and disadvantageous to the latter. Today, this relationship of interest to humans, can be seen with both domestic animals (interests affective / emotional, such as supply shortages or even loneliness), as with other types of animals used for work (such as horses , donkeys, mules and donkeys used to pull heavy carts), for "fun" (unethically animals used in circuses, festivals, bullfights, among other activities that bring them only the physical damage, psychological and even death, many sometimes exposing them to ridicule, subjecting them to stress that disturbs a crowd, or even attacks, in a pseudo name of "fun", as if animals were a kind of court jester, entertainer of audiences, or even Roman gladiator) for laboratory tests (and in this regard include all the species that the reader can imagine, species that are subject to the most diverse, painful, atrocious and cruel tests, to be very scientific, often prove nothing , because of the large difference between the human body and animal), among others.

For our relationship with animals is improved, we must teach our children, from very small to respect animals, to defend their rights radically, to love them as we love ourselves, not to perceive them as mere "objects" . It is also necessary, in relation to the abandonment of domestic animals such as dogs and cats, which we adults do not adopt the habit of giving a child a pet as if it were a "gift". Children have no responsibilities and certainly will not take care of the animals as needed. This task will end up being the parents of the child, only if they decide to take care of the animal with all the attention, all his life, should adopt it. Parents also need to remember that animals have needs, pee and coconut, which emit strong odors, and the fact that animals need safe shelter, when those who oversee or are traveling, then traveling with them. Animals also need veterinary care throughout his life (just as humans need to make their vaccines and go to the doctor). In short, the same way that a child needs all the care and attention, and not be abandoned on the streets, so the animals should be treated. They left their true home, the wild, just the fault of the humans who brought them to the "concrete jungle". Therefore, since the animals are in such inhospitable places without resources, should be responsibly protected and have their rights respected, guaranteed.

Currently, have debated the question of the necessity of sterilization of domestic animals to prevent overpopulation in the streets. This procedure can even be relevant, but no use if humans do not change, primarily, their way of relating to animals, not realizing as mere objects. It is time to change OUR VIEW, treating animals as our kids / brothers. Conclusively, I would cite this passage meaningful Chief Seattle's letter to the U.S. government, written in 1854:

"... So let's consider your offer to buy our land. If you decide to accept, make one condition: the white man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers. I am a savage and do not understand any other form of action. I have seen a thousand rotting buffaloes on the prairie, left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am a savage and do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive.

What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. There is a link at all. "(Chief Seattle, 1854 - http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC03/Seattle.htm)

Written by Paul Lütkenhaus on 03/10/2011, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.


It is true that compared to the automotive market (as well as their needs and political games involved about these needs, such as paved roads, both for movement within a city and also for movement between cities and states), the cycling market, of bicycles, is much less profitable. There are no "sheikhs" of bikes in the international market. When I refer to "sheiks," I mean people with enormous power to influence political, economic and environmental consequences arising from this devastating power. One example is the true "Sheikh" the world oil cartel.

Is also the fact that the bike does not polluted (because his "human fuel", so to speak, does not emit into the atmosphere than burning petroleum-based fuels emit - carbon monoxide - as well as heavy metals, in the case of diesel ). Also, very difficult slowing traffic (I think - someone urgently let me know if I'm wrong - that never has occurred in a traffic jam of bikes on the size of the daily traffic jams, for example, the city of São Paulo, and that if occur one day, will be much easier to solve it than a car congestion). Bikes are MUCH faster than the cars of a metropolis or megalopolis, IN FRONT OF THAT OCCUR daily traffic jams at rush hour (like the time that people go to their service, early morning, or return it). BIKES ALSO HELP PROVIDE BETTER HEALTH PHYSICAL AND MENTAL its users (and their users to make a good workout, also have better cardiovascular, pulmonary and psychological, as some hormones related to sense of well-being are released during exercise). Among many other advantages ...

However, for a good portion of people who make the bikes a legitimate and preferred means of transport arise several difficulties, both with regard to the posture of drivers of motor vehicles (cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses, etc.) and, and not least, the lack of adequate road infrastructure to the movements of cyclists (and, therefore, do not encourage the habit of using the bicycle as a legitimate means of transportation for most people).

Just as there are reckless drivers and riders certainly exhist also cyclists - and even pedestrians - inconsequential. However, both drivers and pedestrians usually have the appropriate channels to their displacement, correctly flagged within the rules of the road, built by the public, the riders, most of the time, do not. So despite the cyclists know the traffic rules and conditions imposed upon them, they do not have adequate road structure to the means of transport by which they have chosen.

Large and immediate financial returns to politics or politicians, certainly the bike and your market does not provide or will provide. However, it is well to remember that no immediate returns, as well as public and environmental returns, should be part of the calculation of "cost-effective" governments, to consider the possibility of implementing bike lanes in the territories through which respond politically. Because the bikes don't emit any polluting gases, cities have better air quality, less heat, due to greenhouse gases and lower rates of respiratory disease in its residents. Moreover, with the construction of bicycle paths and consequent improvements and encouraging the use of bicycles as a legitimate means of transportation for daily shifts, many avenues for the transit of motor vehicles would be uncongested, many people - both cyclists and motorists as well as users systems of public transport - arrive at their destinations more quickly, and, of course, not least, the economy that many people would do in relation to financial resources for the first oil (fuel for cars) and remedies (as a result of a more sedentary lifestyle without exercise). In short, in the current context, as appropriate to the implementation of bike lanes (see the various reasons outlined here - and others who may even still be thought), only politics or politicians that don't wanted to prioritize public health, the well-being, harmony and environmental sustainability, not be complacent with such a noble, ethical and politically correct causes. Think everyone - rulers and ruled, leaders and led, legislators and citizens - in this!

Demystifying the myth of HEROISM OF RECYCLING

Currently, or rather, there are about two decades, we have heard - and seen - increasingly, companies, industries and economic sectors of society to speak on "environmental responsibility" (beyond "social responsibility", which is not focus of this article). With the advent of increasing - though still not enough - society's awareness about the need for conservation and preservation of the environment and its resources, since approximately the time of the ECO 92 (*), the segments are adopting economic policies and practices a little more environmentally friendly - although, again, is not enough - right, many with a simple goal: to pass to their customers and consumers a full corporate image, ethics, beautiful. But ... they really are anyway?? We will see below with regard specifically to the policy of the 3 R's.

Since 1983, on the occasion of the World Commission on Environment and Development, created by the UN and chaired by then Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland, has been proposed integration between economic development and environmental issues, establishing in this way, the concept sustainable development, which means "development that aims to satisfy the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, means enabling people now and in the future, reach a satisfactory level of social development and economic and cultural and human achievement, doing at the same time, a reasonable use of land resources and preserve species and natural habitats. "(SOURCE: http://www.akatu.org.br/Temas/Consumo-Consciente/Posts/Linha-do-tempo-do-Consumo-Consciente-e-da-Sustentabilidade). In order to equip the practice of this concept were signed during the ECO 92 a series of documents and treaties on biodiversity, climate, forests, desertification, access and use of natural resources of the planet, and is designed to Policy 3 R's, or is: Reduce-Reuse-Recycle (exactly in that order). Thus, for nature and its resources were actually preserved, enough that we, humans, rethink our habits and practices we put into our day-to-day not in the habit of compulsive consumption, reduce our consumption, to adopt in our lives the practice of Conscious Consumption (**). After the adoption of this practice, then it adopted the second "R" policy, ie, reuse of materials and products for many times, even in purposes other than those which are normally intended (as an example may be mentioned the seats, chairs or even houses built of PET bottles). Only then, after traveling the paths of the two R's, is to depart prior to the third R, which is the recycling. Thus, only after we reduce our consumption (avoiding excessive and compulsive consumption), and then reusing materials and products is that, finally, consignee those who remained and could not be reused to be recycled back to brand new products.

And that the path of the 3 R's policy is driven exactly in this order? Because only in this order is that natural resources (raw materials and energy) are actually saved. If it were the other way around they would not be spared. After all, it is well to remember that for recycling is made, are necessary, for example, specialized machines that make possible the transformation of old materials in brand new materials. And the machines are made of various raw materials such as metals, which are extracted from nature through mining, an extremely impactful to the environment. The machines also require some form of energy to make them work, whether electricity, heat (such as burning coal, etc.). In addition, the machines also often use water to cool overheated parts were or even the machines themselves. And we know that water is an essential element to life on the planet that is increasingly rare, so that we risk a global crisis in the future a very brief (about 10 years from now). Moreover, machinery and industrial recycling processes, often releasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, further contributing to pollution and global warming (as a consequence, global warming provides strong storms, melting glaciers, tsunamis, hurricanes, among other serious climate changes). Another point which also refers to the process of recycling is the transport of materials to be recycled. Usually large trucks (mostly diesel-powered, and others moved to other types of fuels derived from petroleum) that, in addition to pollute the atmosphere and contribute to global warming, also make use of various types of raw materials in their construction that are extracted from nature, among which we mention the iron ore and oil (used in the manufacture of rubber tires). All this, as can be seen, becomes a vicious cycle in which consumption is growing and the use of natural resources as well, bringing pollution as a consequence, global warming, the imbalance of nature, actually causing environmental chaos instead to avoid it.

And why, then, companies and television both encourage recycling, as if it were a sort of "superhero" to save the Earth and nature of environmental problems caused by human beings, including disclosing that consistently for all children? Very simple: Because their real concern is not with nature but with the profit, or make money. And for that to happen, they need to convince people to continue consuming more and more, buying, buying, buying non-stop and, moreover, believing that consumerism does not affect the Earth, and that it will easily be saved with a little help from our friend "Super Heroine" recycling. And it's all a big lie! The society is being cheated!

So next time you hear companies, television and other economic sectors of society (which in fact only seek profit and nothing else!) Glorify, praise deeply recycling, as if it were to save the planet, you already know: It is the most pure lie! THE PLANET WILL ONLY BE SAVED WHEN THE HUMAN BEING is no longer a strong consumer, WHEN REDUCE YOUR CONSUMPTION!

Some people, often linked to these economic sectors, such as the large and mega business, to try to argue that "Human beings are consumed by their own nature." BUT THIS IS ANOTHER GREAT LIE!!! Just remember how many trillions of dollars (or more) is spent worldwide on advertising and marketing. Let us recall also the fact that a few decades ago, university courses have been developed that focus specifically on marketing, advertising and propaganda. It is little?? Well then you know that today, even psychologists participate, along with advertising, creating commercials and advertisements. You know why?? Because psychologists know well what the visual elements and media exert greater influence and power of seduction of the human mind.

We will not be more charming or chic to drink beverages that advertisements tell us to drink, or smoke cigarettes now on TV (as much as one is able to cirrhosis, pulmonary emphysema or some type of cancer). This is all just another way to entice us to consume more and more, telling us that we are free because we spend or choose our brands, and in fact we are not choosing or thinking, but letting them choose, think and reason for us, manipulating us. In addition, we are helping to destroy the planet faster if we follow what the advertising, TV and the mega entrepreneurs tell us to, ie, consuming more and believing, naively, that recycling alone will save all of us, solving all environmental problems. Problems that both it, the Earth, as we (humans), responsible for them, we are going through. IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP TO REALITY!

(*) ECO-92, Rio-92, Summit or Earth Summit are names by which he is best known to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held between 3 and 14 June 1992 in Rio De Janeiro, Brasil. Its main objective was to seek ways to reconcile the socio-economic development with conservation and protection of Earth's ecosystems.

The Rio Conference established the concept of sustainable development and contributed to broader awareness of the damage to the environment were largely the responsibility of developed countries. It was recognized at the same time, the need for developing countries receive financial and technological support to advance toward sustainable development. At that time, the position of developing countries has become more well-structured and international political environment favored the acceptance of principles developed countries such as the common but differentiated. The shift in perception regarding the complexity of the issue was given very clearly in diplomatic negotiations, although its impact was smaller in terms of public opinion.
(SOURCE: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECO-92)

(**) Conscious Consumption - Also called sustainable consumption, this concept was created in 1995 by the Commission on Sustainable Development of the UN has the following meaning: "Is the use of services and products that meet the needs of all people and bring improvements quality of life, while reducing the use of natural resources and toxic materials, the production of waste and pollution emissions throughout the life cycle, without compromising the needs of future generations. "

PET $HOP$: When the affection is objectified as profit ($).($)

Pets generally very pleasing to humans. It is very common that people like to stroke his hair, scratching their heads, get them on your lap, play with them and even live together more closely, even to the point accommodates them and they sleep in his bed. Just over a decade in Brazil emerged shops specializing in sales of accessories, medicines, shelter ("houses" / "path"), toiletries, baths, trims, accommodation and all sorts of products and services to pets, titled "Pet Shops" (or, in the literal translation of English, shops specializing in sales of baby animals). But will all the owners and employees of these establishments really concerned, dedicated, loving, animal friendly, or a vast majority thinks only of profits, without presenting any of the qualities mentioned earlier in this sentence?

One of the things that stands out in some pet shops is the fact that some of them selling animals. This is something unethical for two reasons:

1) The animals are crated / caged, without any comfort or decent space, proportional to its size, leading them often to stress and / or depression (animals also feel it! And how!). To make matters worse, some pet shops still sell birds. Wow, birds have wings because nature made them to fly, to be free. And many people, unfortunately, end up trapping them just to hear their songs, repetition of words (the popular "blond"), admire their colors, sometimes even believing they are better off in the cage than in the wild. Absurd! What crime did these creatures have committed to deserve to be imprisoned?

2) Often the animals are only sold because they are "race." These animals, mostly coming from breeding individuals (such as kennels and catteries), are also retained from little cubicles where they develop stress, depression or even some other disease caused by deprivation of freedom, as can be seen in documentaries on the subject, as EARTHLINGS (of 9 minutes and 58 seconds to 11 minutes and 30 seconds. Although I recommend to people who want to delve into animal issues the documentary in its entirety). Why, moreover, if we, humans, to prioritize a race among us, despising the other human races, committing the crime of racism, what is it we're doing to animals?? The very thing! That is being prejudiced. Is not the breed that makes an animal becomes a special friend in our lives, but the way that the Treaty, regardless of race that she has, or better yet, does not possess. WE ARE WHO WE SHOULD BE, OR LEARNING TO BE, "OWNERS" * "RACE"! That is, people who treat animals the height of what they can do for us, caring for them, loving them, protecting them unconditionally. The sale of purebred dogs in pet shops is due primarily to the high profit that provides them with such activity. After all, animals are expensive! Remember that many dogs have been abandoned on the streets, why not adopt them, instead of buying another one who sometimes end up meeting the same fate?

Another point to be highlighted in most pet shops is the lack of due attention to the animal. Not infrequently the "owner" to send, for example, your dog medication to take a bath in a Pet Shop, in order to combat ectoparasites such as fleas and ticks, and the bath do not fight in the animal. Or rather, they may even fight, but the shipping to the house of his "own" the car of the Pet Shop, where there are various other dogs (after all, "Time is money !!!"), end up taking them again.

Also, is perceived to lack of patience and love of some of the employees of these stores with their clientele, our animal friends. They take us anyway, we pull the chains without the least care and strongly, tosam us in ways that sometimes irritate your skin, giving them itchy, among other actions. Just look more carefully the Pet Shops and certainly verify the occurrence of all this.

Well, in the above in this article, let me reiterate two points. The first is that not all animals Pet Shop is the aforementioned ways, though mostly still do. The second is that I am not disputing the fact that the profit from Pet Shops. The question really is how they do it. That is, not treating animals ethically, showing total disregard for the beings that we love and that even nfaça.mas things, just that we observe most atheistic loved them, but still deserve all the respect due to the existence and the importance they have on Planet Earth , and are guarded and protected by the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights (http://www.ch-br.net/quatropatasecia/e/infos/animal_rights.htm).

It's time to change this picture. ANIMALS ARE NOT OBJECTS.

**Don't agree at all with the word "Owner", because no living creature on the planet Earth can be relegated to the status of another object. Everyone is born, and we are free by nature.

Paul H. M. Lütkenhaus, written on September 20, 2011, published on September 28, 2011.





Paulo Lütkenhaus

Birth year









Vegetarian. Teacher of Sociology. Defender of animal rights. Defender of the bicycle as a legitimate means of transportation. Environmentalist. Adept theories of "Deep Ecology" (developed by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess) and "Ecological Economics" (developed by Romanian economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen). A dreammer...

I have joined the Memfest community becasue i am interested in

The interconection between environment and society.


I'm a graduate degree (lato sensu) in Flora and Fauna Assessment in Environmental Studies from the Federal University of Lavras - Minas Gerais, and graduated in Social Sciences from the Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Brazil.



Working place

I work in a public school, teaching the content of sociology to high school students.

Music I like

Many styles, but I like very much of Heavy and Thrash Metal.

Books I like

- "Civilized Man's Eight Deadly Sins" (Konrad Lorenz);
- "The Tao of Physics" (Fritjof Capra);
- "The Web of Life" (Fritjof Capra);
- "The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living" (Fritjof Capra);
- "Ecoeconomia: uma nova abordagem" (Hugo Penteado);
- "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity" (Gregory Bateson);
- "The Shallow and the Deep: long range ecology movements - a summary" (article by Arne Naess);
- "Emoções e linguagem na educação e na política" (Humberto Maturana) and many others that I still will discover throughout my life.

Films I like

- Lord of the rings (all the trilogy);
- Brave Heart
and many others...

Websites I like

http://www.nossofuturocomum.blogspot.com (site in portuguese)

People I like

My true friends and people who really care about the building of a better world for everyone, including all forms of life that exhist.

oliver rok inesnin noemi