Oh the sweet sweet power.

The definition of genocide is loosely paraphrased as: acts with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, racial, ethnical, or religious group by:

a) killing

b) infliction of serious bodily or mental harm

c) deliberate infliction of conditions calculated to bring about destruction

d) imposing measures to prevent birth

e) removing children and transferring them to another group.  

I have a long back ground in the environmental movement but I remain semi-distant as well, unable to take a stance on the human v. environment debate.  For example, in many "third world" tropical countries there are a great many wetlands.  These wetlands were, years ago, drained for development, a great injustice to mother earth.  Recently, "first world" neo-colonial environmentalist have lobbied and requested and demanded these wetlands be refilled and returned to their natural state.  So far I am sure you are with me, hell yes lets protect the wetlands. 

After many were indeed refilled and returned to their natural-ish state something terrible happened that was unexpected.  The standing water in the wetlands became prime breeding grounds for mosquitos that transfer malaria and disease rates, as well as premature death rates skyrocketed.  So then, we are left to balance the fact that we do need flora, and especially wetlands, to maintain the normal balance of ecosystems in addition to providing carbon sinks which help, albeit slowly, mitigate the effects of global warming, with the welfare of hundreds of thousands, or millions of people.  Is there a way for both goals to cease their struggle and work together?  I think I have been shown a way.

Getting back to the definition of genocide.  If you recall the first part has an intent element, the perpetrator must intend to do the genocidal act.  However, where I see hope is in the american concept that can double for intent in our own justice system, gross negligence, reckless endangerment, other ways to say that the perpetrator indeed had the requisite intent to be convicted of this crime.  If the intent prong of the genocide test could be broadened to include these equally culpable mental states, then there is hope for the Environment v. the People.

Assuming the intent prong is expanded, I turn to the third subprong.  "Deliberate infliction of conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of the racial, ethnic, religious or national group."  I immediately see the potential for the most massive lawsuit in the history of the world, with the first world as joint defendants.

In the same way withholding oxygen by strangulation is murder, withholding water or medication or food should also be considered.  By pricing the third world out of most medications, taking their water and making it undrinkable, and forcing the use of soil degrading genetically modified crops, we are essentially perpetually engaged in class warfare on a global level, it has indeed been escalated to the level of genocide, and it cannot stand.  

I see a chink in the armor, one worth putting my foot in.  The gun has sounded and we are off to the races, justice is catching up.   

2 quotes, tangentially related to this topic, Im not sure how, but they are there.  

"The problem with democracy is that its leaders reflect the population in every way."

"Democracy is a terrible form of government, its only salvation is that it is quantifiably eight to ten times better than any other form."

-Jubal Harshaw introducing the man from mars to the earth.  

-Disclaimer, this was written fairly heat of the moment, I refuse to edit anything I write and I sure as hell did not outline this blog.    Think of it as, "dictated but not read"  peace