We often see examples of blatant immorality as a result of commercial activities. A good example is the murder this week of the fourth individual in one month to protest indiscriminate logging in the Amazon (total stands at 48). Another is the insisting promotion of nuclear power even though it's only 2% of all energy sources, probably surpassed by renewables. It's dangerous, unnecessary, we need the money elsewhere, it's immoral. Maybe we are missing the point here. Morality (as I understand it) is that knowledge we apply that protects life, community, dreams of fellow individuals, so as to maximize the strenght of lives given everyone is treated equally. This definition is not respected at all by commerce. Are hard line commercial organizations immoral? Maybe not. Maybe they are simply confused. If you don't see individuals as the stakeholders of your morality but enterprises and commercial entities, and only those, then you can have a new type of morality. You can strive for the most abundant commercial eco system. You may see there's room for a business like this or like that. You may think that logging means work for many businesses, carpenters, lumberjacks, you name it. People like the products so you feel good about anyone involved in making them. Morality is directed towards the activities and the effect, but not so much to the individual effects, especially not towars individuals you don't interact with. It seems flat commerce with devestating effects for the prospects of life on Earth is merely a product of people developing a morality with entities that have no life in reality. Coca cola, Facebook, companies like that are all mechanical destroyers of water reserves, energy reserves, time, our climate. But we apply our morality to them as if they are people who's lives we should protect. This misappropriation of our human capacity to care is a fact. We do care about companies and businesses, we do care about money as well. All this caring means morality is occupied and can not be adressed to motivate people to do something against these companies, that would be immoral! The person that defines morality in terms of human lives will not be able to get through to the preson that has developed a morality to care about business or businesses. And the fear of loss of economical activity will be a deep trauma and horrible thought to these people, that see no harm in using what's available, even if it is finite and has become essential like oil. If minds are not tuned to protecting life they are at serious risk of losing it. That risk becomes an open trapdoor in a dark room, dark because noone tries to identify trapdoors. It becomes just a matter of time and someone does something that pulls a lever for one or the other. But this loss does not even register. How do people recover from a misdirected habit of caring. They may not be able to, because after all, caring and affection and protective behaviour is key to survival of species. What if mother bear wakes up one morning and has forgotten she cares for her cub. It's a one way conditioning, it's the system heroin addiction triggers, so a cold turkey heroin addict displays what people go through if they are deprived of everything they care about. Our planet is being destroyed by junkies for destruction. A worse situation is hard to imagine.

Speaking to the people that see no problem in the actions of the banking system I get the feeling there is a division within society of people that have been convinced there are too many people on our planet. As a result they view current trends in food security and climate change as a welcome mechanism to remove a lot of 'useless eaters'. Strangely they don't seem to believe they run any risk for inviting desperation, as if they think they live in some fortess. The common quality though is addiction to a culture, a way of life, no matter how bad things get. The will to feel superior is stronger that the will to survive ? Are people that aknowledge weaknesses in order to respond considered the designated victims of 'predators', like the wildebeast that runs away is chased by the lion? Are we going extinct to win a game of chicken?

Wake up people, the oil/credit system has everyone sucking it's tit, but it's poison that comes out of it. Greenpeace is cruising the arctic waters to prevent drilling, in the south china sea Vietnam is getting into conflict with china because Exxon is looking to pull open another hatch in the floor of our mothership. A hatch that will flood it with poisonous black oil and suffocating gas. The only sane respons to laws that protect this suicide and genocidal machine is to make a case for your desire to survive. You should be allowed to execute your personal security strategy, and you are if it's recognized as such by law. You may want to grow food in Texas without being ripped apart bij freak weather or turned into a smouldering ember by spontaneous wildfires. You may not be indoctrinated in a corporate culture of fear where you always strive to own stuf and eventually be allowed to visit Dubai (a good place to get used to the environment of the future). Self defence means defending your life, not even your lifestyle. We need to start the court cases, file them, commit an act of self defence that allows us to explain our position. We are not frogs in a boiling pot.

Niels Hanssen of Nasa has testified in defence of UK protesters that tried to shut down a cola fired power plant. This is the type of testimony we need. Am trying to contact the defendant http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/29/climate-change-activists-trespass-charges

"This meeting is part of the world's efforts to address a very simple fact -- we are destroying life on earth," Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, said at the opening of the meeting in Nagoya, central Japan. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69E0BF20101018 Do you see this danger averted in a competitive environment? Do you see yourself able to influence this?