Nature Protection Foundation

The Nature Protection Foundation

and

Environmental Eonservation

Of course practicing most nature friendly Vivism is also very environment friendly, so that promoting this principle of behaviour implies taking care of environmental conservation.

But because it is not certain how long it will take before this principle will be practiced that generally, that environment is hardly or not spoiled any more, the NPF counts with the possibility that this could take too long to prevent that environmental disasters which are known to be developing now, meanwhile would have made that goal unreachable and irrelevant.

Therefore the NPF apart from promoting Vivism, also pays special attention to finding and promoting ways in which environmental disasters can be prevented as instantly as possible in other ways.

In this context she pays special attention to items like reduction of energy use, finding new sustainable ways of generating energy, promoting their use, as well as reduction of pollution in general.

In her vision important results in this fielt also are to be achieved indoors, particularily in housekeeping.

Essential questions here are:

- A) In how far is it possible to get along whithout (unsustainable) heating (and cooling)?

- B) How to make ones energy use as sustainable as possible otherwise?

- C) How to reduce or eliminate ones use of polluting materials like soaps, plastics, and aluminiumfoll?

As for A

In how far is it possible to get along without (unsustainable) heating (and cooling)?

Indoor heating mostly takes a considerable use of gass, coal, wood, or electricity, which in all mentioned cases implies a significant degree of environmental damage. Only in case it works on just solar and/or wind energy the damage for nature and environment is sizably less; but it's a known fact that at the time being this is very rare.

Therefore nowadays environmental decline would be reduced significantly if the practice of indoor heating would be reduced strongly or eliminated.

On first sight this may seem impossible, but one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that naturally people (as well as other kinds of animals) do not need any kind of heating.

One of the main conditions in this context is indeed that they are living in the kind of biotope they optimally belong in, among others as far as concerns climatological circumstances in connection with their biological racial qualities. As a result it cannot be denied that environmental conservation among other things asks for people to live in their naturally own area as much as possible.

If they do, another important condition to succeed in doing without indoor heating is using in principle only the most natural kind of food as possible, which particularily implies eating raw food.

This may be not even an 'official' point in Raw-foodism's theory, but to the author of this site it is certain, because his own experiences in this field confirm it time and time again; only from the moment that exceptionally a bit of cooked foodstuff is eaten, the shivering makes it's entrance; otherwise the (relative) cold indoors (seldomly lower than 12 degrees Celcius) feels like freshly, but doesn't really get through.

Meanwhile he thinks this can be explained thus that inside the body there's some kind of a thermostat that works pefectly when the kind of food (fuel) that is used is the one the body is constructed on, but (being a most sensitive peace of body technique) stops functioning instantly as soon as some other kind of 'fuel' is 'put in'.

Furthermore of course clothing has to be thicker, the lower temperature is. In winter some three pulls and two or three throusers (depending on their lump) mostly are sufficient (in the temperate climate zone). Gloves are only seldomly needed.

Once one is used to this (after one or a few winters), it can very well arrive that one prefers this above the more or less paralysing artificial warmth of a mostly gigantic numbers of microbes killing heating.

By the way cooling

(Own experiences meanwhile additionally have made clear that the more naturally one eats, the less one suffers from summer heat in case temperature reaches the kind of height that used to result in the well known puffing and other suffering, followed by resorting to the energy guzzling help of a fan. Last summer (2014) temperature repeatedly reached 31 degrees and it just felt like very comfortable, whereas the impression existed that this wouldn't be different at 40 degrees.)

As for B

How to make one's energy use as sustainable as possible otherwise ?

As already mentioned above, heating (and cooling) by use of solar and/or windenergy is significantly less environment unfriendly than by use of more conventional kinds of energy like gass, coal, wood or electricity from the grid.

As however usually most of the electricity that can be generated by own solar panels and/or (a) small windmill(s) is needed for other purposes, getting along without heating and cooling as good as always is the most sustainable way.

Besides, when use of electricity for other purposes is not that big, doing without heating and cooling creates the possibility to deliver the non-used self generated sustainable energy to the grid, as a result of which the share of environment friendly generated energy there is proportianally raised.

An additional way of generating nature- and environment friendly electricity is using a device that is droven by pedalling or by swingling manually. In this way one can generate up to 200 Watts an hour xxx . To the NPF this might however be raised considerably by adding a castor wheel to this kind of devices.

And then there are the many ways in which one can reduce one's indoor energy use. Such as:

•Using manually droven devices instead of electrically droven ones. (A whisk instead of a mixer, a slicer instead of a foodprocessor, manually droven grinding devices (like a by now antique coffeemill), etcetera);
•Avoiding use of (electrically droven) devices by performing the relevant work manually; (dustpan and brush instead of a vacuum, doing the laundry manually, drying it on a line, etcetera).
•Avoiding use of (electrically droven) devices otherwise. (Especcially in case one doesn't use any animal foodstuff, it's very well possible to get along without a refrigerator and a freezer. In case one does use animal foodstuff, not purchasing c.q. getting rid of these noisy energy users can help very well in reducing consumption of animal foodstuff with all its known health risks).

Apart from saving eneregy, an essential advantage of this policy is, that in this way one's activity in housekeeping isn't reduced more and more to pushing buttons all day long, which in many a case leads to unhealthy results such as obesitas, but on the contrary time and time again leads to a healthy exercise of ones muscles, whereas at the same time it warms up, so that the need of heating is reduced proportionally.

An additional environmental advantage of avoiding use of electrical devices is in the fact that thus one's indirect use of energy is reduced at the same time, as absence of the need to buy c.q. replace such devices implies that they don't have to be produced at the cost of a certain degree of energy use (as well as other causes of pollution).

About the same goes for buying the devices one really needs second-hand as much as possible.

As for C

How to reduce or eliminate use of polluting materials like soaps, plastics, and aluminiumfoll?

First soaps

As was posed above already, it's very well possible to do the laundry manually in just cold water.

This implies that no detergent is used, which not only is a positive thing from the environmental point of view (production, phosphates in surface waters), but also saves gigantic numbers of microbe lives.

For the main function of detergents is to kill these not only innocent, but mostly also very well doing little creatures in a probably very cruel way.

By using only cold water on the contrary, their congeners, that find themselves in there, are able to carry out their refreshing function in a more natural and life friendly way. (As this is not a microbiological essay, details about how one and other takes place, are not mentioned here).

Still, especcially in case the textiles to be washed are light coloured, the result of this life friendly way of washing doesn't look the same, as the result of the life unfriendly way, which includes use of hot water and of soapproducts.

Mostly some kind of clouding remains visible (after a while).

But as the solution of that problem finally is found to simply not buy and use very light coloured textiles any more.

Also worth mentioning in this context is that the frequency in which clothes, like shirts, have to be washed, has shown to be determined to a conciderable extend by the kind of food, the person who wears them, is eating.

Consumption of animal and other unnatural foodstuff evidently leads to a much stronger sweating and other evaporation of stuff, that evidently doesn't belong inside and therefore is expelled through the skin (among others saturised fats and salt).

Another mentionable fact here is, that after dressing a shirt that has been washed in the nature unfriendly way with hot water and detergent, it often takes a while, before the skin is used to it again, whereas a garment that was washed in the life friendly way, is accepted as good as immediately, and in case it's made out of a natural material, like (eco-) cotton, at the same time starts functioning more or less as a second skin again. Undoubtedly in fact this is a bacteriological matter.

Then plastics

There are several ways in which use of this material, (that is produced at the cost of a lot of pollution as well as microbe lives and that causes even more pollution, at the time it's burned in the garbage ovens), can be reduced conciderably in housekeeping.

For instance plastic household bags (used in rubbish bins, freezers, etc.) mostly are thrown away after first use, mainly because they're too cheap to wash them out with cold water and then reuse them many times.

If however most of the users worldwide would do this last mentioned anyway for the sake of nature and environment, the total reduction of plastic use would be gigantic and so would be the reduction of plastic waste that ends up in the oceans, where now already it all together is leading to disastrous states xxx.

Also in the field of food retail use of (among other things plastic) packaging could and should be reduced very strongly, for the sake of sustainability and saving microbe lives.

For instance most drinks, that now are sold in bottles and packs, could better be tapped in the store, so that only once a botlle or some other packaging has to be bought (and produced).

Fruits, that now more and more are in boxes of syntethic material, might all be sold unpacked again.

Also the one time sacks, in which unprepacked fruits now still are carried along, can very well be reused many times, by using two or three of them over each other, so that together they make a solid one, on which many weighing labels can be sticked upon each other. Even better it would be when instead of the very thin one time sacks more solid ones that have to be payed for and can be reused many times would be made available in supermarkets.

An additional reason to opt for this policy is the fact that in production of one box or plastic sac probably billions of microbes, (the evolutionary oldest forfathers of the human kind), are killed.

Aluminiumfoll

As for aluminiumfoll it's worth knowing, that the material this is made of (bauxite), is mined at he cost of serious damage for landscape in the countries concerning. Also, like is the case with all other mining products, its extraction from the ground brings along an in itself dramatic destruction of natural ground life there. This alone could be reason enough, to reduce use of the foll to an extend as large as possible; (for instance by using it not too rashly and instead always concider whether a less environmentally harmfull material such as paper one way or another can do as well).

Another reason to do so is in the fact that production of the foll takes very much energy and as a result brings a proportionate emission of greenhouse gasses.

Recycling (reproducing) it, on the other hand, takes much less energy.

So there also might be reason enough, to apart from reducing its use, stimulate gathering of this material in housekeeping, (in case it can't be reused directly), so that it can be collected and recycled (the way it happened decennia ago with tin foil, also called silver paper).

For instance inside fruitjuice packs in many cases there's a layer of foll (meant to prevent, that the content reacts with the material of the pack), and it's not impossible to take this layer off of that pack.

The NPF, untill now didn't manage to get to know, in how far this and that is realisable, but to her it can't be denied that there are important reasons to do what's possible in this respect.

----------

Other ways in which housekeeping can be made

more environment (and life) friendly, than is usual nowadays

Floorcovering

In this context it can make an essential difference, what kind of covering is on the floor.

When it's parquet, the chance is big, that it's wood comes from cut down giant trees in a tropical rainforest.

Hopefully by now is sufficiently known what all the environmental objections against use of this material are; xxx xxx.

In case is chosen for some hairy kind of textile, this usually costs a lot of energy, (as well as time and noise nuisance) to hover it that often, that

So from the environmental point of view it's best, to choose for a covering, that can easily be kept clean by use of just a brush and eventually cold water, in case stains have to be removed. Linoleum therefore from this point of view is one of the most suitable choises one can make.

Waste separation

As for household refuse, from the environmental (and life protectional) point(s) of view waste separation is very important.

For the less of it is brought to the incinerator, the less emission of greenhouse gasses are the consequence. Generally spoken it can be separated in eight categories:

•The first one is food residue, that animals (especcially free birds and insects), like to eat (for instance cores and certain kinds of fruit skins).

As far as possible, it one way or another should indeed be given to them (for instance in the garden), so that they get at least part of the fruits, they are supposed to have at their disposal in nature, but nowadays mainly is removed by humans, who made an industrial branch of growing and trading it.

Noted in this context however has to be, that unnatural food residue, like bread and other cooked stuff, in principle doesn't belong in this category, but in the second. For as raw-foodist know among others from own experience, eating this has rather unhealthy and otherwise unpleasant consequences, and this definitely also goes for animals. In a way one is causing deseases like cancer with them as well, when one gives them this to eat. We've seen birds, that once undoubtedly were as eager and dynamic, as they all use to be, but now are waiting for hours under a window, from where they use to get especcially residue of bread. There's hardly a better proove of the addictive and paralysing effect of eating this 'cooked' foodstuff.

•The second category consists from food residue that animals don't like to eat, (e.g. skins of oranges or banana's), as well as other organic materials such as wood (garden waste) and therefore will break down in a composting process.

•Number three is paper; (as far as a separate container is present or it's gathered otherwise).

•Number four is glass; (as far as a separate container is present).

•Number five are plastics; (as far as a separate container is present).

•Number six are batteries; (for wich separate containers mostly are available in public locations such as supermarkets).

•Number seven is chemical waste; (such as medicins and other farmaceutics, as well as synthetic paint, thinner etc.)

•The eighth category, in principal all other kinds of waste, in housekeeping consists mainly of synthetic (packaging) materials other than plastics. This is the only part, that is directed to the incinerator.

And what's more

More in general has to be pointed out, that it are not just pollution, greenhouse effect and microbe lives, that urge to reduce production of all kinds of materials as soon and as much as possible.

An extra reason, about which hardly is spoken publicly, is in the fact, that in the production and distribution process of mostmaterials a considerable quantity of crude oil is used, whereas reserves of this raw material are said to be nearly exhausted, whereas it is also needed to produce artificial fertiliser, of which by now an average 75 lb (35 kilo) a year is needed per person, to keep nowadays food availability on the level, it is.

So when as a result in a few decennia it can't be produced any more due to lack of it's base material, whereas global populationwill have kept growing as strongly as it does now, humanity might have a serious problem then.

In this context it certainly is worth reminding here, that practising Vivism is very environment friendly, among others because it implies renouncement of making fire both directly and indirectly, which in it's turn in principle implies renouncing production of as good as all unnatural materials as well as use of motor fuel.

Meanwhile the Nature Protection Foundation seeks to promote use of life friendly natural materials such as linen made from dry (naturally died off) flax stalks, as well as dry reet, which has most astonishing application possibilities: xxx xxx.

-----------