About "stop smoking"...

I said I have an old Agenda 99 and that one of its first pages is dedicated to what is called "affirmative actions". The schedule called for us to write some actions that we would do at the beginning of the year and that would help save the world from environmental collapse.

I, with the naivete of a good consumer, listed five attitudes that I thought ecological attitudes.

The first act was to "stop smoking".

What relation has between "stop smoking" and ecology?

I've asked this question before in this blog, but not answered.

How does a smoker to contribute to the destruction of planet Earth?

I think the fact that smoking and destroying nature are tangents things. These things are different forms of  unacceptable aggression. Both are things that must be fought. They are problems with different causes and different solutions, but both urgent and delicate.

There is between the smoker and the destroyer of nature a close relationship. It is a subtle relationship, but critical. Solve a problem is a precondition for the solution of another problem. Otherwise, let's see.

I understand that a smoker, and I was a smoker, undertakes an action in smoking that represents a serious attack on his own health. It seems that nowadays there are few smokers who admit to ignore the evils  that smoking produces. They may disregard the risks, can claim that they are long-term risks, but can not say that there are no health risks.

Now, a smoker is in a hurry to an addiction. A chemical addiction, it is true, but a destructive addiction.

In my quick thinking, it seemed inconsistent that someone can take ecological actions without first taking most urgent attitudes quest to save yourself from a clearly destructive addiction.

They are real risks arising from the ecological destruction of the planet, but a smoker is much more subject to risks that a non-smoker.

Furthermore, it was for me a matter of self-love. How can anyone love nature and not love his own health?

How can someone saving the world and not save himself before? Worse, how can we expect to save the world before dying needlessly from an addiction?

The ecological thought should rather be subordinated to the thought of a healthy life. Sick people should take care of yourself first, then take care of the world.

 

Thus, it seemed to me that I could not hold on ecological actions without first taking care of my own health.

But if smoking is an addiction, and Iwas not born smoking, how fell I in so expensive and painful mistake?

This is another question. But not now.

Moreover, that my reasoning about the relationship between smoking and ecology is relatively correct, but incomplete.

Anyway, I stopped smoking.

This is the main issue, and that really has made me think to much.