Kritisches

The case of Barbara

Wildeshausen, 22.10.2019


To the editors,
I have dealt with the environmental problem, in the short and medium term, and with the attitude in the population of the USA towards it. I have written the story below as a letter to the editor.
Yours sincerely
Dr. Gereon Walther
Wildeshausen
Germany
 
 
The case of Barbara
Admittedly, the story does not take place now, but in a few years. It had been recognized that the environmental problem had nothing to do with "good and evil", but with "underlying" human characteristics. For example, in the sense of "subdue the world" a - Christian - motto that shows what people have internalized. Thus the idea arose to work towards the change of consciousness - and as always politically active people and then also lawyers had taken up this topic and introduced a general "labelling obligation" of people.
 
Bill of indictment
The defendant is Barbara
The accusation is for omission and pretence of false circumstances.
Bill of indictment: The defendant is accused of having failed to wear a tattoo or a similar sign on his forehead in accordance with the regulations for this group of people with the inscription "I am responsible for 20 t CO2 production per year". The pretence is to suggest that your person is an environmentally tolerable being. As is well known, "tolerable" is defined in such a way that the CO2 production caused by this person is below the average personal cause of the world population - on statistical average.
Statement of grounds: The accused's lifestyle causes a CO2 production which is undoubtedly above the per capita average of the world population - this comparison is presupposed here as a relevant parameter or is still justified.
The lack of reference, by means of tattoos - or other legally permitted permanent markings - to an environmental pollution caused by the lifestyle of the accused in connection with their appearance against industrially active CO2 producers leads to a misleading of the population, in such a way that there is a guilt here.
Statement of grounds: The fact of the misleading results from the suggestion and the contradiction: on the one hand from the allegedly harmless and even honorable appearance of the accused, which friendly approaches the opposite and at the same time carries no marking - in the above-mentioned sense - and thus pretends after general impression to stand up for a better ecology. And on the other hand, from the CO2 production that is actually caused at an above-average level.
In particular, the amount of CO2 production induced by the defendant must be added to the penalty: the defendant owns a car and makes often use of it, whereby the vehicle causes an above-average CO2 production. The defendant did not consider it necessary to travel within the city by public transport and thus consciously accepted an increase in CO2 production. The defendant's private consumption is also above average, in particular the use of air conditioning systems, the defendant also makes tourist trips, the defendant consumes food, which contains a high proportion of meat, the defendant changes the furniture in her private home regularly and thus causes a further CO2 burden through industrial production. The defendant wears fashionable clothes and renews them, although the clothes would still be functional. The defendant spends part of her budget on cosmetics, which is demonstrably without function and therefore without benefit and therefore only harmful to the environment.
A further complicating factor is that there is no discernible improvement in consumer behaviour - this can, however, be proven by a further examination of the findings.
Depending on the evidence, a further point of charge may be added: incitement of the people (to a low degree of severity). The possible criminal offence consists in negatively influencing people's awareness in two ways.
Statement of grounds: The harmful influence of the population, which ultimately has a detrimental effect on the environment, consists in the fact that the population is encouraged not to recognise the question of guilt. In detail: In the collective consciousness there is a shift of guilt, which leads away from one's own responsibility to companies led by people who act in the sense of increasing capital. The avoidance of the actual, personal responsibility or the denial of individual causation has serious consequences for society, because by shifting responsibilities it not only has an apologetic effect on each individual, but also leads to a distortion of the perception of all legally relevant facts.
If the aforementioned charge is confirmed, another punishable offence will result: the decomposition of the will of the people.
State of the grounds: the process of trivializing personal responsibility, at the national collective level, demonstrably has an effect on a part of the population in the way that one thinks one can get rid of one's guilt by acting against certain exposed personalities. Also demonstrable is the reaction of another part of the population, in such a way that here - through their own, conscious or unconscious feelings of guilt - a behavior in the sense of an intrapsychic counter-regulation occurs, which consists in particular in the creation of a special image of the enemy. In detail: the enemy of this population group is those who appear to be well-meaning but actually act dishonestly. There is a split between the two population groups, which prevents joint reactions - especially to environmental protection.
It must be assumed that the accused is aware of these mechanisms.
State of the grounds: The defendant has an academic background in law and has spent many years working with social standards and social ethics. It can therefore be assumed that there is an inherent awareness of society as a whole and a sense of responsibility on the part of society as a whole must therefore be assumed.
 
(Note 1: For example, the case is to be judged differently from cases of other exposed personalities, such as US presidents, who do not have any particular intelligence and are therefore unreflected and are not in a position to recognise the significance of solidarity in society as a whole. These persons tend to misjudge the significance of human solidarity and weaken social cohesion. The present case is therefore different.)
The latter charge is not in itself punishable, but rather leads to the condition that in legal proceedings, also concerning environmental protection, personal, ego-related motives must be mentioned.
 
(Note 2: Concerning the subject matter of the case: The indictment is not suitable for trivializing or justifying human-induced influences on the natural environment. Rather, it is about a tendency of the wrong way, with the aim of environmental protection, but ultimately counterproductive. The withdrawal of the human personal responsibility or also only the underemphasis of the completely personal responsibility for the environment, is in the medium term the devastatingly wrong measure, it leads to the division of the population. It is important to promote, also in a legal way, the way to an adequate handling of this problem, in particular by a change of consciousness without splitting the people can take place. The world is first and foremost threatened by the lack of human solidarity.)
  » zurück