The NPF

and

environmental conservation

One of the items, in which the Nature Protection Foundation is specially interested, is environmental conservation.

Of course practising very nature friendly Vivism is also very environment friendly, so that promoting it includes taking care of environmental conservation. But as is not certain, how long it will take, before this philosofy of life is practised that generally, that environment is hardly or not damaged any more, the chance exists, that before it would be that far, environmental disasters, that are known to be developing now, will have made that goal unreachable and irrelevant. Therefor 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 this context she pays special attention to items like reduction of energy use, finding new  ways of generating sustainable energy, promoting their use, and of course reduction of pollution in general.

In her vision very important results in this fielt are to be achieved inside the house, including in housekeeping. Essential questions here are:

- A) How to get along comfortably without (unsustainable) heating?

- B) How to become self sufficient in energy supplience sustainably?

- C) How to need as little as possible devices and other objects, that are produced at the cost of a conciderable energy use, pollution and/or devastation of green area?

- D) How to reduce or eliminate use of polluting material like soaps, plastics, and aluminiumfoll?

Hereafter an impression will be given, of how these questions are answered in NPF's vision.

 

As for A)

How to get along comfortably without (unsustainable) heating?

Maybe the most important condition to succeed, in case one wants to reach this goal, is eating raw food as far as possible. It may be not even an 'official' point in Raw-foodism's theory, nor can the NPF give some kind od an explanation, but to the author of this site this principle is undeniable, because his own experiences in this field confirm it time and time again. From the moment, exceptionally just a bit of cooked stuff is eaten, the shivering makes it's entrance.

But of course apart from that, clothes have 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 middle third of the temperate climate zone). Inside the house gloves are only needed, in case temperature outside is very low.

Once one is used to this (after one or a few winters), it's very well possible, one prefers it above the more or less paralising* artificial warmth of the mostly polluting and gigantic numbers of microbes killing heating.

As for B)

How to become self sufficient in energy supplience sustainably?

Of course it's also possible, to have an electrically powered heating, and generate the used electricity oneself in a completely nature- and environment friendly (sustainable) way. Solar panels and/or a small windmill in the garden, or several even smaller ones on the roof; there are possibilities enough, as far as in a sustainable houskeeping this electricity is not needed completely for other purposes than heating.

Also thinkable is to use a hometrainer to fill up the house-accumulator. One hour of pedalling a day not only might bring enough electricity, to have all devices work and the light function, but it also leads to an innerly warming up, that reduces the need of some kind of heating conciderably. The only problem here still is, how to connect one thing to another. (Marginal)* efforts of the NPF, to make insiders develope such an installation didn't succeed untill now. In her vision, especcially in combination with a castor wheel, this might work very well.

Of course use of electricity by devices can be reduced strongly by using as much as possible ones, that are droven manually, or manual objects, that replace electrical devices. (For instance in stead of using a foodprocessor, simply using some kind of slicer, manual grinder, etcetera); (one can even ask oneself, in how far microbes, that find themselves inside foodstuff to be grinded, are hurt or maybe even killed in an electrical grinder; when using a manual one, there's no question about that).

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 cases might lead to consequences like obesitas, but on the contrary time and time again leads to some notable exercise of ones muscles, which warms up and in general is known to be stimulating conservation of ones health.

As for C)

How to need as little as possible devices and other objects, that are produced at the cost of a conciderable energy use, pollution and/or devastation of green area?

 

Washing machine and dryer

One way of saving energy and preventing the need of buying (and so production) of devices, that nowadays are still present in nearly all housekeepings, is doing the washing manually. Indeed, more or less the way aboriganal tropical women (once) go (went) to the river, to clean and freshen up clothes and other textiles in the cold (and most microbes rich) water of a river, one can wash and freshen up a great deal of the laundry by letting it soak in cold water for a day and then wash it manually, also in cold water, after which it is dried not in an electrical (extremely much energy using) dryer, but on a line, which mostly takes more time (especcially in winter) but gives equally more satisfaction, when one realises, how much pollution in this way is prevented and how many microbe lives are spared.

So in this way not only energy use is reduced, but also no washing machine and dryer have to be bought and as a consequence produced at the cost of the well known drawbacks of materialistic society. If one does anyway, because one wants to wash certain clothes still in the now usual way, reduction of their use will postpone their replacement proportionally.

Hoover

The answer of the question, in how far a hoover can be missed or used as little as possible, in a high degree depends on  what kind of covering is on the floor. When it is parquet, the chance is big, that it's wood comes from cut down giant trees in a tropical rainforest. It can supposed to be sufficiently known by now, what all the environmental objections against use of this material are.

In case is chosen for some hairy kind of textile, this usually costs a lot of energy use, (and time and noise nuisance for other persons present) to hover it that often, that it stays fresh and clean.

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.

Second hand

In this context can be pointed out, that one more way, to reduce the need of new devices being produced, is buying second hand as much as possible. Not only devices, but all, one uses inside and outside the house, like furniture, bikes, etcetera, in case they really have to be replaced, as good as always can very well be found in a usable second hand version too. Of course one should mind, that it doesn't have to be transported over a that long distance, that the environmental gain is gone, but especcially when using a bike, eventually in combination with a trolley, there's no question about that.

Indeed, it may be some more complicated, than simply order new stuff in a store, but here again moral satisfaction and nature's gratitude compensate that loss of comfort more than completely.

As for D)

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

First soaps

As was posed above, it is very well possible to do the washing manually in just cold water. This includes, that no detergent has to be used, which not only is notably positive 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, carry out their refreshing function in a completely natural and life friendly way. (Because 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 rather light coloured, the result of this life friendly way of washing doesn't look the same, as the one of the life hostile way, which includes use of heated 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 being mentioned in this context is the fact, that the frequency in which clothes, like shirts, haven to be washed, is determined to a conciderable extend by the food, the person, who wears them, is eating. Animal and (other) unnatural, so unfruitarian/unvivistic, food evidently leads to a much stronger sweating and evaporation of stuff, that evidently doesn't belong inside and is expelled through the skin (for instance salt).

Another mentionable fact here is, that after dressing a shirt, that has been washed in the now usual way, with heated 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 causes even more pollution, at the time it's burned in the garbage ovens), can be reduced conciderably in housekeeping.

For instance deepfreeze bags often, if not mostly, are thrown away, after their first use. After all, new new ones harldy cost anything and are available abundantly. But it is very well possible, to instead wash them out and dry them on a line, after which they can be used again and again; (no bacteriological problems have to be feared, even when the washing out has taken place with just cold water, because as far as any microbes are left behind, they will freeze to death at second use of the bags).

When this alone would take place in most householdings, this already would lead to a gigantic total reduction of plasticproduction.

When however, apart from that, in all other cases, where plastic household bags are used and mostly thrown away after first use, the same mode would be followed, reduction would really be essential.

For instance the bag in a rubbish bin mostly is thrown in the garbage container, together with it's content, after which a new one is taken from the roll. In many, if not most cases however, it's as easy to instead just empty it and reuse it, whether or not after washing it out in just cold water.

Not exactly inside the house, but also in the context of housekeeping the packaging problem is actual. In general could  be said, that use of all packaging in the field of food retail 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, would better be tapped in the store, so that only once a botlle or some other packaging would have to be bought (and produced).

Fruits, that now more and more are in boxes of syntethic material, might all be sold unpacked again. After all, in production of one such a box billions of the evolutionary oldest forfathers of the human kind are killed.

The one time sacks, in which unprepacked fruits now still are carried along, might be no longer the free, very thin, one-time plastics, but solid ones, that have to be payed for and can be re-used many times.

Untill then one can always use two or three thin ones for one and re-use them like that as long as possible.

Finally aluminiumfoll.

As for aluminiumfoll it's worth knowing, that the material this is made out of (bauxite), is mined at he cost of serious damage for landscape in the countries concerning and, like all other mining products, extracted from the ground at the cost of a conciderable destruction of natural ground life there. This alone would be reason enough, to reduce it's use as far as possible.

One more reason might be, that production of the foll takes very much energy and thus leads to a proportionate emission of greenhouse gasses. Recycling (reproducing) it, on the other hand, takes much less energy. So this could be an additional reason, to stimulate gathering of this material in housekeeping, in case it can't be reused directly, so that it can be collected.

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); 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 it would be worthwile in practice, when gathered foll would be collected and reproduced (again, like it once used to be).

Another way, in which housekeeping can be made more environment (and life) friendly, than is usual nowadays.

Household refuse separation

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

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 three categories: (for a fruitarian) 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 is indeed given to them.

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 when it eaten by 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, who now are waiting for hours under a window, from where they use to get especcially residue of bread. There's hardly any better proove of the addictive and paralysing effect of eating cooked stuff.

The second category consists from food residue, that animals don't like to eat, but is organic anyway and therefore will break down in a composting proces; for instance skins of oranges and of banana's, as well as pips; (bits of paper also belong in this container, which in many places is emptied by municipality).

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

In this way only a relatively small part of household refuse has to be burned at the cost of numberless microbe lives as well as some air pollution, whereas the mainly bigger other part is broken down in a natural way, without any kind of drawbacks, but with some gratitude from animals, that in this way get at least part of the fruits, they are supposed to have at their disposal in Creational system.

 

And what's more

To end this item with, more in general may be pointed out here, that it are not just pollution, greenhouse effect and microbe lives, that urge to reduce use and 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 crude oil reserves are said to be nearly exhausted, whereas this stuff is among others 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.

When in a number of decennia it cannot be produced any more, due to lack of it's base material, whereas global population will have kept growing as strongly as it does now, there might be a serious problem then.

In the mean time it certainly is worth mentioning here, that practising Vivism also is so very environment friendly, because it includes renouncement of making fire, both directly and indirectly, which in it's turn includes in principle renouncement of using motorised vehicles, as use of fuel is a way of making fire (in which gigantic numbers of microbes are killed directly, and/or indirectly (refining process).  See also:  http://www.vivism.info/pageID_5792800.html .

 

---------------------------------