Ambientalistas y ciudadanos en general se manifestaron por el respeto y protección del medio ambiente.

Marcharon “Por el Planeta” en Los Cabos

Los Cabos, Baja California Sur .- Para participar en la denominada “Marcha por el Planeta”, un grupo de aproximadamente 60 ambientalistas se reunieron este viernes en la explanada del Palacio municipal de San José del Cabo para enfilar hacia la glorieta de FONATUR, ubicada frente al mega en San José del Cabo.

La ambientalista Alicia Marcial, organizadora de la marcha informó que este movimiento se está realizando en 150 países del mundo, en plazas públicas y escuelas.

Esta marcha ya conocida como “Friday for Future” (Viernes por el Futuro) o “Marcha Climática” se ha vuelto una tradición a la cual convoca a nivel mundial  la activista Greta Thunberg, teniendo como finalidad proteger el medio ambiente.


* * *

2 comentarios en "Marcharon “Por el Planeta” en Los Cabos"

  1. El Pargo  15/03/2019

    Dejen el planeta…dediquense a correr a los Agundez Montano, que son las lacras de la region…seria bueno licharlos, en la plaza publica…junto con ese sangron nuevo, el bodoque de Narciso, que ya debe dos vidas, salio maton el angelito…

    “The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed” ( Steve Biko, South African anti apartheid activist killed in 1977). This activist purported that oppression succeeds because it’s legitimacy is internalized. The oppressors instill their assumptions as the perspective from which one looks at the world. Liberate from perspective equals overcoming oppression.
    The linguistic denominations that shape our perspective of ”CLIMATE CHANGE” and “Global Warming” seem to work as extremely efficient linguistic tools, leading to a emotional dumbing ,complacency and obfuscation regarding the subject of this denomination, world climate, something humanity cannot live without and is in danger of losing!
    In a branding sense, these words, “Climate change” and “global warming”, do not convey a message with the sufficient significance in regard to the subject, climate, something humanity cannot live without. In “Branding and understanding your customer” by Laura Lake, she explains that Classic branding does the following: Tells who or what you are. Tells what you or it does, how you do it, that it should peak customer interest. She goes on to say that a clear definition of a brands audience and the objectives you want it to achieve are critical to effective brand management. “ Branding is the expression of the essential truth or value of a organization or product………………it is a communication of characteristics, values”. In WIKIPEDIA it states that branding identity consists of 4 levels of meaning: “ATTRIBUTES, BENEFITS, VALUES, and PERSONALITY”. Wiki comments on the expanding role of branding: “brands have been coopted as powerful symbols in larger debates, Economic, social issues, politics. …………The power to communicate a complex message quickly, with emotional imput…….” I can confidently say it, and “global warming” do not contain any emotional content. Nor, as Laura Lake explained, does this label, climate change, tells what we are talking about, describes what it does, how it does it, nor does this term, climate change, peak the interest of the user. This term does not communicate any essential truth or value about what it is talking about. Regarding the 4 levels of meaning of the brand identity of these words: In regards to Attributes, we have “change” and “warming”; benefits (or effects), “change” or “warming”; Values, says nothing; personality, says nothing. So why do we use this label? Apparently it is a term that originated and is the term used in the scientific community. In 1955 Gilbert Plass first used the term in a scientific paper, “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change” identifying that increased manmade CO2 changed the climate. In 1971 a letter was published in SCIENCE entitled simply “ CLIMATE CHANGE” In 1975 Wallace Broecker used the term “ global warming” in the title of a scientific paper. In 1977 a journal was created ( still published today) called” Climatic Change” Adding to the weight of the term “ climate change” this was institutionalized in 1988 by the creation of the” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” or IPCC. Apparently with institutional approval, the use of these labels “climate change and “ global warming “ has continued without anyone giving these terms a serious thought. But upon the most fleeting examination, it is evident this vocabulary is one that corrodes the significance and special meaning, along with any special qualities important to us, that constitute “climate change” are lost. These words convey a inoffensive generic formula in emotional neutral language. In these administratively sanctioned terms, the defining features, identity and meaning of what “ climate change” signifies ,are lost. Frank Fured, in his book on the subject states’ “linguistic engineering impacts in very real and negative ways on how we conceive ourselves and how we think about ………. Words really, really matter”. Feng Yuan Ji in his book, “Language and politics in Mao’s China” defines linguistic engineering as “any attempt to manipulate language in order to affect beliefs”. During the cultural revolution in China, 1966-1976, Feng Yuan Ji stated on page 283 that linguistic engineering constituted Mao’s “ most precise instrument of ideological transformation” surpassing the soviet model.
    So how does all this work with the term “ climate change” and “ global warming”? How is it that something as important as I describe, and is being communicated right in front of us, and we are not aware of it’s significance? We use a expression without being aware of it’s significance and meaning. That is exactly what is happening, we are not aware of not being aware.
    Shall we examine the mental effects of the use of these terms? What happens in the brain when thesewords are heard, thought or used? The mind/brain forges synaptic connections, as these are repeated, brain structures are formed by these new synaptic connections. Neurogrowth is stimulated, and the mind that fires this way together, is wired together for the future. In this way habitual thought patterns feed beliefs and subconscious states of being and filter reality. In this way our opinions regarding ‘climate change” and global warming “ are ( self) engineered or contained by editing out the part of reality where “ climate change” is talking about something in grave danger that we cannot live without; are we not then talking about climate extinction, or the absence of a climate susceptible to human life? The problem with the terms C.C and G.W is that on a functional level the neurons that fire are few, relative to more emotive words, and limited to that part of the cerebral cortex that process word meaning only, like a word processor, no limbic input is present. It is this limbic system that regulates and activates emotion ( fear, possessiveness, love, ect), and it is these neural actions we remember as memories, the ones with emotional imput, imput necessary for coherence w/ other emotions so as to construct intention. This is how the significance of a thing is created in ones mind. No limbic activation, no significance. To be significant, the thing must affect fear, our possessions or things we depend on, love, ect., if this does not happen, the thing is not significant, and it will not tend to create a memory, and the mind will be lulled to sleep by the routine processing of the term ”climate change” and “global warming”. These terms activate what has been called” inattentional blindness”, described as” this inability to perceive, this sighted blindness seems to be caused by the fact that the subjects were not attending to the stimulus but instead were attending to something else, we label this phenomenon “inattentional blindness”. In experiments, students whom were asked to count baskets vigorously in a video basketball game, didn’t notice a clown crossing the court while they looked at the clown while counting baskets. Upon hearing the words “climate change” we are unaware of the skull and crossbones that lurk there, but are readily aware of this danger when the term “climate extinction” or even “ climate instability” is used. Once this inattention becomes a habit a anchoring effect takes place, cemented by the common use and experience of the term.
    Once this inattention is unmasked, and the true significance of the process we are dealing with is perceived, this climate instability that is leading to extinction, this climate extinction ( the climate will make us extinct), then we can easily realize that a stable climate is a basic human right, a commons property of all humanity. A label with a high degree of expressive power in this regard, would threaten the powers that be. There is a recognition by the systemic powers that the public would not support the present policies leading to extinction, if they were aware of them, therefore it is important to them ( powers) to prevent any awareness or understanding of them ( climate instability). Public spectators are wanted not public participants. This may seem a idle declaration, so I submit the text of the ‘Luntz Memo” a memorandum to Pres. Bush form his advisor, pres. Of the Luntz Research Corp. working for the President of the United States regarding environmental issues:
    We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. the terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “ environmentalism”. But it’s time for us to start talking about ‘ climate change” instead of “ global warming” and “conservation” instead of preservation.
    1.-“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “ sounds like you’re going from Pittsburg to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming as catastrophic connotations attached to it , climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.”
    This man was aware of the impact of the words and connotations of these, and wanted to avoid and downplay “catastrophic, uncontrollable connotations, and avoid frightening the ones whom could do something about this situation that implies survival. If he was on the side of the preservation of the climate commons, for the preservation of man, he would have suggested to use the term that created the most catastrophic, un controllable connotations, he probably would have liked the term “ climate extinction”.
    A goggle scholar search shows the increase in usage of these terms over time. In 1985 the usage of both labels was a little more than .0000005% of total language use. In 1987 this useage surpassed the .00005% point, a over 100 times previous usage. In 2007 this usage ( for both terms) reached .0005%, another 10 fold increase. So now we are at the point of a over thousand fold increase in usage, over other words. Each time these terms are used, it is a potential lost, for a more adequate term could have been used in it’s stead, for instance “climate instability” or Climate extinction” that would be more descriptive and would no longer serve to hide the real issue, that climate is in danger, as are we. Upon usage of the more adequate terminology, “ climate instability “ or “climate extinction” this would mentally condition and enable a appropriate and measured fear response, and the feeling that something that belongs to humanity is being taken away. Without the correct collective response to this world problem, and the changing of habits and beliefs that impact on this situation, there is no hope it will be changed in the future, humanity will , unaware ably cause the end of mass scale civilization.

    Anyway it is clear to me we have lost the communication and propaganda battle regarding this subject of manmade climate instability from the beginning. A example occurs to me that is an analogy for what has happened regarding the use of “ climate change and “ global warming” .For instance, a social scientist writes a science shaking article titled “ Adult use of children for sexual purposes increases children’s experience and knowledge regarding the subject” From this point on the label “ children’s experience” is used to describe pedofilia. Since the catholic church would be the most interested in applying the linguistic techniques necessary to create a warm and fuzzy label, congruent with the creation of a future “Stockholm syndrome”, this label is promoted. An example of how different labels for the same terminology matter is the following example I saw used on the internet: a poll taken regarding the use of the two labels “The affordable health care act” or” Obamacare”. The two labels mean the same thing, but as you can imagine, the responses varied greatly. For this reason it is vitally important, that marketing tactics , strategies, and linguistic engineering be applied in the communication of this process of human caused possible extinction by affecting the climate stabiliy, beginning with the new battlecry,” CLIMATE EXTINCTION” not “climate change”.

    This effort attempts to identify and suggest measures to rectify the effects of misnaming the present climate instability situation existant on this planet “ climate change” and “global warming”, and to suggest this label be discarded, and the correct term “ climate instability” be used in it’s stead.
    The basic premise motivating this effort, is that a correct naming, and the utilization of branding strategies to draw awareness to this planetary phenomenon will unleash human forces not presently brought to bear on this acutely human problem for her future.




Tu e-mail no seá publicado.