My open letter to Greta Thunberg

In my recent writing, I have challenged Greta's lack of action to tackle corporate and political crimes committed against millions of people worldwide in the past three years.

Theodor-Nicolae Carp

BSc (Hons) Biomedical Science,

University of Essex, Colchester Campus

London, Greater London Authority,

England, United Kingdom of the Great Britain

Date of publication: 02/01/2023

Last updated: 09/01/2023

Dear Greta Thunberg,

My name is Theodor-Nicolae Carp, I am a Master’s student in a Life Sciences-related programme and, like you, I am very passionate about the wellbeing of all life forms and of the Earth. Your commitment to engage with the general public, influential figures and leading politicians around the world is laudable, and I have seen your incredibly good intentions in your efforts to persuade all people to maintain a healthy relationship with Mother Nature. In this letter, I wish to highlight a number of approaches you have publicly shown or strongly suggested to be taking that I believe need to be challenged and possibly improved. I also wish to ask you a number of questions related to important issues of human and environmental health that I have not seen you addressing publicly, despite the major importance to do so. You are an influential worldwide activist and many people have placed their hope on you to make the necessary changes to make the world a better living place for all. However, I believe that not addressing the core foundations of the well-implanted and long-lasting problems in our society will make your efforts insufficient to make that change that we all need. For example, you have fiercely called for radical changes in our behavior, which include a pronounced decrease in carbon dioxide emission, start of a collective action to accurately recycle used materials, not waste unused materials, become better educated in life and obtain accessible health services for all. I wish to mention that it is not the regular individuals who started this problem, but powerful people from the establishment did. There is a very significant discrepancy between the rich class and the poor class of people, and this discrepancy resulted in many rich and poor people alike harming the environment, for different reasons. Numerous rich people had power excessively in their minds and trampled upon valuable members and elements of nature. Numerous poor people ended up harming nature because of the lack of the necessary amount of the important resources to maintain their welfare. Likewise, the foundational problem that may have caused an alarming rate of environmental decay is not the human being, but corruption and avarice that have been deeply embedded in our society, from the level of world establishments. It is no coincidence that money has been regarded as the eye of the devil in several European areas, as an unhealthy focus on money breeds avarice and unhealthy financial discrepancies, which in turn lead to a spread of poverty and lack of essential resources that may spread like wildfire. Ideologies were then created and eventually spread as a reaction to widespread avarice, but they turned out not only to be erroneous, but also incredibly harmful. Likewise, such a historic era of harmful ideology proves the point that a reaction to an original problem should be based on full discernment and by receiving the knowledge about the entire context of the previous negative events. Our duty as a new generation is to prevent history from repeating or, worse, from repeating in a more amplified and widespread version.

We are part of Nature and likewise, we shall not be separated from Nature as a manner of punishment from our past environmental sins. The greatest punishment we can have is education, which is both theoretical and practical. In case you have not come across the notion of “The Great Reset” and “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”, I wish to mention my strong opinion, which is based upon many facts, that a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” would seriously harm much of the Earth’s environment and probably cause irreversible effects that would affect life as we know it. Several world politicians and corporate leaders are suggesting all mankind could be placed into “smart cities” and “environment-protective bubbles”, that much of our life would be moved underground, that there should be a general separation from areas where Nature dominates, and that there should be a transfer of much of the high-speed transport from a high altitude in the sky to major depths of the Earth. I have stated, in a philosophical attempt at viewing such an action, that it would indeed be human pride and corruption that would take us from places higher above the clouds to places far underneath the low underground caves. Furthermore, a Fourth Industrial Revolution not only would further the process of technologization, but it would make its increase even much sharper. I wish to mention how harmful a regular usage of smart technology is for human psychology and medicine, and especially for the children, who are in critical stages of neurological and systemic development. Given that the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein applies to all layers of matter, human psychology and intelligence are subject to Relativity. Technologization is increasing the levels of intelligence but, with this rapid increase of human intelligence, the duration of our lifespan would be perceived as much shorter and the space around us would be perceived as much smaller. In other words, the era of technologization is separating us from nature and hyper-automation is eliminating the whole meaning of life, slowly but surely. The reason why pets take fewer years to fully develop is not because they are more intelligent than us, but because the Theory of Relativity applies to developmental biology and animal psychology as well. Likewise, the higher the level of cognitive intelligence, the longer the duration of biological and psychological development, but this is not all. As we know from old times, intelligence without wisdom is dead. If our wisdom is dying as a result of such a separation from our natural origins, then that would explain why human life would be perceived as shorter and with a much smaller meaning. What we seem to be lacking like oxygen seems to be wisdom, and we have an unspoken, instinctive duty to protect our wisdom. 

You see, dear Greta, all mankind was formed and given birth through unconditional and undeserved love. Then we have been nurtured through the same undeserved love, many times in the midst of heavenly nature-dominating places, where sunlight enlightened our inner beings, where fields, which are filled with flowers, lakes and forests and green pastures, make us wish to explore the infinite horizon of the clear blue sky; where deserts would make us thirst for what is good, where rain feeds us with the life-giving and life-sustaining water, where seas and oceans maintained our inner stability and where cloud-crossing mountains filled with fresh spring waters maintained our mental health and seemed to keep our relationship with the divine strong. A separation from this God-given Nature would be cruel and would ultimately be directed against Nature, for depriving a son from the necessary aspects for survival would deeply hurt his mother. With the progressive loss of touch with our essential origins and with the sharp increase of technologization and automation, we have become disconnected from our loved ones and we have forgotten to give back the unconditional and undeserved love we have received since our conception. Please have a look at the alarming incidences of loneliness, familial separation and divorce, as well as the increased mental health crisis that came as a result of love deprivation, which have been taking place in areas of the world deemed as “most developed”. Many of us also started engaging in ideological conflicts, and consequently, we have forgotten to be human. Such an unprecedented lack of human affection over the past few decades has resulted in a visible increase in the number of deaths, given that affection is as powerful as water with regards to the sustainability of life. How can we be capable of saving the world, the environment and the climate, when we are no longer capable of loving ourselves, our loved ones and our neighbors, and when it really seems that human beings within over industrialized areas are encouraged by their local environment to progressively behave more like robots? Also, numerous residents of such areas have sadly not received the practical skills required to preserve nature and climate, which I find to be outrageous, given that skills as such are necessary to maintain the health and integrity of our natural environment. Likewise, as a Master’s student in a Science-related domain, I expect you to address the core foundations of all corruption and encourage the only “punishment” that we need, a reconnection with Mother Nature like the reconnection of the prodigal son with his loving father in the New Testament of the Bible, and this is possible if we also reconnect with our fellow human beings and start radiating unconditional love abundantly again. 

Furthermore, I also expect you to understand how life in big cities is; not just in First-World Countries, but all around the world. People are very often working in a manner similar to slaves, and all for a place to live and put bread on the table for the family. Many times, people work overtime, have very little time to rest and enjoy the natural environment and consequently, do not have enough time to receive the necessary education about how to rebuild nature, especially in over industrialized places. Working ten hours per day for 80% of the week, in such an artificialized environment, and having an allowance of a two-week period as holiday time per year is not a healthy and nature-friendly life to live. It is rather impossible that humanity would be reconnected to her natural origins through this approach and consequently, it is rather impossible that humanity would receive the practical side of the education, as well as the motivation, to repair the damages performed in the over industrialized big cities. It is also perhaps this modern slavery-like imposed lifestyle that may be playing a major role in further separating us, natural beings, from nature, and likely in further harming nature. Many people feel it in their gut that there ought to be rapid changes to the way society views money. Nature cannot receive a finite price and likewise, I find there is no rational meaning behind capitalizing holidays in areas where our Mother Nature dominates the environment. The “Great Reset” that powerful leaders from the World Economic Forum have been almost aggressively proposing would harm nature in a sharper manner, even if all mankind were to be placed at deep levels of the underground. Moreover, according to evolutionary biology, our ancestors evolved out of caves, so a human mass colonization of underground, “modern” caves would suggest that humanity is undergoing a dangerous extent of de-selection. One may argue that would seem to be a situational, natural de-selection that would precede a stronger evolution of mankind, but the primary means that seems to be leading us in such a pattern is artificial error, meaning that a scenario of stronger human evolution actually seems unlikely. We ought to find solutions whilst seeking to be within the areas of nature, and not outside. All the scientific theories, notions and laws come in a fully perpendicular agreement with this statement. And I have a number of reasons to believe that, if we actually tried to rebuild Nature in such artificialized environments by planting trees and seeding plants and flowers, not only would they be destroyed, but we could also face legal consequences due to the increased influence of corporate-oriented laws, which are now clearly suppressing common law. 

The solution is not for everybody to be obliged by law or to receive benefits if consuming less meat or insects. The solution is also not for everybody to become subject to strict measures to consume less carbon dioxide. We need to understand two important aspects. The first aspect is that perception is diverse, and just because one perception is different, it does not mean all other perceptions are always wrong. The Theory of Relativity applies into very deep levels of the physical matter-related existence, and that may include human biology and psychology. Just because one person experiences illness because they consumed chicken meat after ten years of abstinence, it does not mean that the meat was toxic to many people. It means the person’s digestive system was not ready at that time to process the meat. However, the person may perceive the meat as toxic and start to share this perception publicly if the negative views about meat are still deeply embedded in their perception. The same applies to one’s mental connection with nature. Just because one feels disconnected from nature, it does not mean nature has a small or inexistent influence upon the world, and so I believe one must not be swayed by a shifter perception and possibly shift themselves and people around them even further from nature, in the same manner as an addictive drug may be pushing one for more usage. The second aspect is that carbon should be regarded as a double-edged sword, and we must remain in the middle ground in order not to be slashed by one side of the sword. In other words, we need carbon to survive, and the positive impact of organic food is showing the evidence of this statement. If we use too little or too much carbon, we place ourselves at an unprecedented risk of collective harm. Likewise, measures of climate-related lockdowns that would implicate radical reductions of carbon emission and the placement of people into physical bubbles or serious movement restrictions would lead to serious consequences to human health and integrity. Many renowned climate activists, including yourself, have stated that current levels of carbon emissions are performing much harm. But what do you think about the manner the mainstream oil industry, the major banks and leading politicians paid a deaf ear to the cutting-edge inventions by Nikola Tesla and the more recent invention of water-based car engines by Stanley Meyer, despite their nature-friendly characteristics? Would such discoveries threaten the pockets of the multi-billionaires owning the major oil corporations? There has been no communication about such major events in scientific discovery and innovation, and personally, I find this to be odd for firm and loud activists whose intentions are to make the world a better place. Likewise, before stating an observation or making a decision, I believe it is essential to perform our due diligence at all times and seek to find the context behind all events occurring in our environment in order to maintain progress in society and beyond. 

With regards to the notion of overpopulation, I wish to suggest that it is not the entire Earth that is overpopulated, whether by humans alone or by humans and animals, but that it is the megalopolises and areas of major poverty that are subject to excessive growths of population due to the lack of necessary resources of education, health and survival, and due to the massive migration to First-World countries and cities that has happened due to war and poverty. Powerful leaders did not seek to robustly end conflict in poor areas of the world and save lives, but they more or less directly pushed for the conflicts to continue, as Winston Churchill once stated, “Never let a crisis go to waste”. Likewise, the massive discrepancy between the rich and the poor societies is truly deepening the crisis of general living conditions around the world. However, the Earth is not overpopulated yet and there are clear signs to suggest that she could still easily house 15 billion people. The reason I am stating this affirmation is that big cities altogether occupy less than 0.01% of the world’s surface and that areas where nature easily dominates the environment occupy the vast majority of her surface and are many times far less populated. Furthermore, the current of Malthusianism has recently been dismissed as part-misinformation by peer-reviewed studies. The first dismissal would be a study performed more than two centuries ago, before the first mainstream fears of overpopulation would even arise. Namely, Dr. Pierre Verhulst proposed that nature is capable of self-regulation, meaning that human and animal population growths automatically fall under such a self-regulatory pattern. It is the establishment-provoked separation from nature by means of artificialization, hyper-automation and technologization that is causing the problems you have been exposing through your persistent activism. Hyper-automation could eventually result in the replacement of human workers with robot workers, and this has been repeatedly suggested by important members of the World Economic Forum, such as Dr. Yuval Noah Harari. Work is an essential part of human life and likewise, I dare ask; where will humanity go if there is a widespread lack of work availability? It seems that the vision of our leaders is that many of us would be locked in areas of the underground, with no opportunity to work either. The sub-current of Cornucopianism, in which it is suggested that methods of molecular cloning are necessary to widen the availability of resources in case of significant overpopulation, automatically falls under such a rebuttal, and I personally believe that molecular cloning is the core of all problems that came along with the bioethical issues of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). In a nutshell, there are evidence-based reasons to highly suggest that, not only could Malthusianism be based upon significant levels of misinformation, but it could be that the current is also breeding controversial and even dangerous methods in the attempt to preserve humanity. Likewise, I wish that you shift your activistic focus toward the establishment and call for unprecedented changes in world politics; changes that would not lead to the New World Order that the powerful leaders are almost salivating for, but for a change that would bring all people to have a more direct say and receive fair treatment from political and financial leadership. 

Furthermore, I suggest you have a look at the manner public health institutions have behaved in the past three years and how nature-friendly solutions have been suppressed. Please have a look at how medicine has been monopolized in such a manner that only a few similar vaccine approaches have been heavily promoted to eight billion people worldwide, despite the existence of thousands of major genetic and health backgrounds, and all for a disease that is manageable by stimulating faster first-line immune responses, which would tackle the ability of the virus to directly and indirectly camouflage itself and suppress the interferon system. Recently, I published a review scientific paper about how a low-dose Interferon I and III-based nasal spray could prove to be a major vaccine candidate against COVID-19 and possibly against several other infectious diseases and even some major oncological diseases, given their infection simulatory and first-line immunostimulatory effects, both from the intracellular level. You see, the greatly beneficial effects of the low-dose interferons that mainly have anti-inflammatory action has been known for decades, and Dr. Anthony Fauci even stated, back in 1980, that they could count as a major vaccine against influenza and AIDS in the future. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the same Dr. Fauci stated that only a spike protein-based vaccine would eventually rid humanity from severe COVID-19 forms of the disease. Eventually, such a vaccine caused at least hundreds of thousands of short-term and long-term fatal adverse events worldwide, but they have been dismissed as rare and it was said that COVID-19 could have killed many more. I say, just because the virus would kill more people, it does not mean we should disregard the fact that up to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, or even more, lost their lives due to an approach that was meant to prevent a severe and life-threatening disease, and not cause one. Likewise, I find it fully rational that people are skeptical of the current public health approaches designed to prevent and treat the disease, as there seems to be a suppression of important methods of solution against the pandemic disease. I have reasons founded upon solid ground that the interferon-based approach could have ended the pandemic within 6 months and made the disease much weaker. Furthermore, many world governments decided to keep their entire populations in strict lockdown measures for up to 12 months, depriving many of the daily needed Vitamin D3 intake following the lack of exposure to the required amount of UVA and UVB radiation from the sun, and consequently causing the immune systems of many to become decayed. As a result, not only many people have become more vulnerable to the regular flu variants, but we have also encouraged viruses to evolve and further sharpen their first line immune-evading activities, as the overall public health approach has also primed the immune system to act against the spike protein of the novel coronavirus. Please have a look at the lockdown measures that persisted in China and at the words by Dr. Klaus Schwab; “China is the number one world model that we should follow”, which were said at the time the first anti-lockdown protests were erupting nationwide. We can easily link the dots with regards to the actual intentions by the leadership of the World Economic Forum and world governments following their model. We have persistently spoon-fed the human immune system with copies of live-attenuated and dead microbes, as well as with fragments of microbial genomes, and we have performed insufficient efforts to directly train the first-line immunity to become faster, before microbes have the chance to camouflage their pathogen-associated molecular patterns and suppress the host interferon system after their entrance in the host cell and the production of their non-structural proteins (but especially non-structural proteins 1, 10 and 16). We have even disregarded the need to tackle the evident abilities of SARS-CoV-2 to produce non-structural proteins that make it much less recognizable to the pattern-recognition receptors, whose activation mechanisms lead to the expression of Interferon I and III-encoding genes. 

In conclusion, I wish to mention that this letter has not been written to support Andrew Tate in any shape or form. I fully agree that his behavior of showing off his riches was immature and I strongly believe it played a significant part in suppressing valid arguments in the current efforts to maintain the integrity of human society and environment. I fully respect the recent action from the Romanian Justice System to detain and investigate Andrew Tate as a suspect in a teen trafficking row, and I place my hope that full justice will be served if he is proven to be guilty. I have written this letter to emphasize upon the fact that a third side of the argument almost always exists when two opposing sides are fiercely fighting one another. And when the two opposing sides are fiercely fighting, the third side almost always is suppressed, despite the highly valid arguments that it likely presents. An old saying states that the truth is always in the middle, and I find this statement to be very wise, especially in this age of misinformation and misrepresentation of facts. Without defending or undermining Andrew Tate’s potential guilt in any way, I also have put into question the fact that, after several years of prosecutory and judicial processes, many, if not all suspects in Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s lists of close connections and regular visits are still yet to be taken into custody and investigated. The reason why I have written this letter is that I have not seen you address many of the issues I have highlighted throughout this text, although they have caused major disruption in the world. We need to apprehend that the source of all existence is completely good, and bad started existing as a result of rebellion against good out of pride, which leads to inner and outer destruction. Likewise, the original hierarchy of competences has been distorted many times into minds in which bad made infiltrations numerous times. Likewise, just because bad is present in distorted hierarchies, it does not mean we should eliminate the foundational aspects that make human existence possible, by throwing the baby out with the bath water. I also believe we should discern the high necessity of human goodwill from executive power-derived approaches that would force the performance of good deeds, just as we should discern a more direct form of democracy from communism, as progress and goodwill can never be forced in any manner. I hope that you will read this insignificant writing from a regular University student, and that you will ensure you will consult with all people before taking important action, as you are influencing the viewpoints of tens of millions of young people around the world, and it is young people who can be more influenced, whether in a positive or a negative fashion. Most importantly, I am kindly asking you to place critical thinking above all of your activism and not to follow what influential world leaders are suggesting before double-checking that their wishes for the world population are for the best. As a national of an Eastern European country that suffered damages and bloodshed in her struggle against communism, I hope that mainstream climate activism will not slowly turn into a totalitarian-breeding environmentalism (whether communist or fascist), and I wish to highlight another saying, that the road to Hell is often paved with good intentions.

Signed,

Theodor-Nicolae Carp

Source of the image: By Photo by DAVID ILIFF, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=43330268