For a while I've been thinking of what's the most ideal kind of governance the world can adopt. We know any form of dictatorship is a gamble just not worth taking. Even in the best case scenario of having a most genuine, selfless and wise ruler, it is just a matter of time until it leads to massacres. And of course humanity has come a long way from choosing to rest its fate at the mercy of one individual or party. Communism, full of noble intentions on paper, has disappointed too. Eventually, power corrupts all noble intentions, and noble intentions become the cloak through which horrible things can be done. Religious States, I'm surprised even continue to exist. Democracy seems the best we have evolved to. Slow, chaotic and hard work, but gives humanity a chance to live and express their collective human potential. And, of course, peaceful. You don't have to worry about getting killed for no rhyme or reason on a day-to-day basis. A nascent phenomenon in the human history, one could say it still needs a few more years until we perfect the system, and then the glorious years of humanity could begin. In my opinion, far from solidifying, the trajectory is already going downwards. It is fast becoming an illusion of freedom. Like anything, people have figured a way around even democratic credentials. The modes of control have evolved, the weapons of conflict have changed, but, behind law, behind jargon, behind elaborate narratives and erudite visions, power games are on, full-fledged. I don't think a bunch of smart people have consciously come together and are plotting and controlling everything. But they are definitely fighting each other for a bigger chunk of power, and perhaps, after years of consolidation among the players, the numbers will come down to a handful who will probably suddenly realise they can finally come together and make the world their puppet. Then it will be the same old theme of tyranny in a new wrapper.
By "forces" controlling us, I in no way imply that there's a group of people watching our every move, monitoring every action, and with their invisible hand leading us to do what they exactly expect. But nonetheless, that's exactly what is happening but more out of chaos and chances. All that these "forces" presently are doing is, getting you to loosen your purses and spend. They are chasing profitability and they want an empire of consumers so that the cash register keeps ringing. And for that, all that these "forces" are doing is exploit the already existent human drives. To which we are slaves. Our hunger, our greed. our love, our anger. Our dreams. Emotions, motives, weaknesses, call it you want, it is these things that are being played with, inadvertently making us give the reins of our lives to someone else. Eventually, the only freedom most of us will exercise is which weakness to choose.
No matter what the system, the larger game has been power. Either got out of luck, intent or just as inheritance. Even unwillingly. But once in power, decisions have to be made which will affect all those in its purview. Either in favour or against. But decisions have to be made. And of course, any decision will be made basis that person/group's sensibilities and moralities. Driven by their needs and desires, and what they think is right or wrong. Now, how in a world with billions, are ever going to be on the same page and agree on something! The odds are completely in favour of a world never short of issues. Even a single inadvertent injustice is enough to snowball into a movement, and a whole new conflict is born.
What none of the political ideologies can ever address is the root of the problem. Which is total human alignment on an idea or a concept. Because, they are just ideas and concepts, which though many being lofty and noble, will always be perceived differently. Even in the miraculous case of everyone being aligned to a way, it still won't stand the test of time. Things change and the platform on which any system resides, soon becomes redundant. The core problem is, everything rests on transient human concepts, purely human-centric. And as long as this aspect remains, any governance is a ticking time bomb. What we need, is a platform of truth. A reliable, tangible truth, which is indiscriminate, unmistakable and undeniable. A set of rules bigger than any human idea or ideal. A string of survival that's sewn through all. And that framework of truth is, Nature.
You see, the locals must be have employment reservations is debatable, but the Earth revolves around the Sun is not. Rich people must share their money is debatable, but Trees provide oxygen is not. Equal Gender representation can be contextualised, but glaciers reflect sunlight cannot. Free education can be proven non-pragmatic, but bees have a massive role in the ecosystem cannot. Anything and everything can be justified or denied, with ample reasoning, but the cycles of nature and how they sustain life on this planet, need no words to prove themselves. Be it rich or poor, white or black, upper caste or lower caste, Muslim or Christian, it is there for everyone to see. (Many still don't see, but that's because they're just distracted. But once they see, there's no room for subjectivity. It is what it is.) With a few basic experiments, even an illiterate can, broadly if not in depth, understand the fundamentals of Nature.
It's all about the balance, baby!
Now what if, it is these broad laws of Nature decide how we operate on this planet. What if, all we got to focus on is, respect and understand the balance in nature, keep it stable, and continue going about our human nonsense as well, but only a little differently.
The Spirit of Naturocracy illustrated–with broad instances and hypotheses
As we know, all life is possible just because of nature's cyclical patterns. You know, the currents, the winds, they cause climatic conditions, allowing particular species to thrive in those respective conditions, thus causing other inter-dependencies, yada yada. We all know the broad cycles of Nature. Surely, we are aware of The Seasons (even though as just Fashion Collections) And all creatures respect it, live by it, preserve it, because they know that they play a part in maintaining the predictability of weather conditions. They don't and are not allowed to upset this predictability. For it will upset the delicate balance. Turtles mate in one place, and go to another place to lay their eggs. Have you not heard of migratory birds travelling thousands of miles to lay their eggs? Bears hibernate, giving a chance to their prey to relax and live awhile. Heck, my own dog, living in the same comfort and abundance of my home, alters his eating habits as per the seasons. All adapt and play a part in maintaining the balance, except humans. They eat, drink, travel, reproduce, work, and do whatever, whenever. It would have been all right, if it wasn't coming back to bite them. But unfortunately, it is coming back with a vengeance, and consequently leading to gross injustices in their own societies. It's just that no one is making fundamental co-relations, but labelling them as moral or ideological or whatever jargon issues. But behind all, it's just a survival game. A minority might be hated for the way they live. But the way they live is because of their poverty and oppressed state. Which they were put into, in the first place, because the oppressor's survival was threatened. The oppressed state produces a kind of aggression, which has to be organised and channelised so that they can win against the oppressor. And for that, emotion is stirred. Hatred is roused. Maybe, God is also brought into the picture. And the same is happening in the rival camp. And in a couple of generations, it just becomes a class thing or a race thing.
So, suppose, we, just like all other creatures (we are exactly that, after all), just adapt our hustle to the climate cycle. Suppose our annual activity is governed by the seasons. Suppose, we split our annual activity in seasonal quarters, and go full throttle in our activity in Spring and Summer, and come Winter, we all just take a long introspective break. Autumn can be a transitional phase.
Basically,
Spring Quarter
Summer Quarter
Transition Quarter
Shutdown Quarter
Winter is a holiday from pronounced work. No offices, no machinery, no explicit energy-consuming economic work. (Basically, no going on about work like a maniac). Shutdown. But beyond this one can do whatever they want. You can have family time, trips with friends, catch up on hobbies, with no economic obligations. Your boss won't call you to hound you with work (which mostly anyways is just towards pointless progress). If the boss is a hopeless workaholic or single-mindedly devoted to his or her vision or work, he or she can by all means spend the rest of the winter thinking of newer ideas, better strategies, honing skills and introspecting. It gives them too a break from the manic bustle to step back and reflect on the progress and its long-term direction. And they would happily do so, because the competitors too won't be working. There won't be the fear of losing the edge owing to slowing down. In fact, it levels the field. Capital heavy businesses won't steamroll through smaller players without them having a breather and a level playing field. The smaller and ambitious players can devote their time to reflect and at least plan their next move with the luxury of a little more time. No hasty decisions that burns capital and kills employees. Employees too can recover, rejuvenate, explore and grow. It is just a necessary break that balances things and lives, and doesn't hamper any growth. It just delays it by a quarter which is absolutely acceptable if it leads to happier people and a happier Nature. Because, most importantly, Nature gets to take a breather. Like how the pandemic lockdown helped many things back in order. The air and water cleanse again, thousands of species essential to life breed and improve their numbers, temperatures and currents recuperate, and human kids get to experience the beauty of Nature. They get to see stars, climb trees and cycle in the open without the fear of some truck knocking them dead. The disaster and tragedy of kids growing up in harmful artificial environments, averted. Besides, they grow with an inherent understanding of Naturocracy. Of course, the kids are free to play video games, but at least the option of outdoors remains. Then it is up to the parents. Because Naturocracy isn't diktats. It won't micro-manage your life. You do what want to do. All it does is enable what should be; and then it's up to individuals. And instinctively speaking, given time and opportunities, and when not under the pressure of Economic gains nor or keeping up with the Joneses (because the Joneses too are halted), most individuals will choose wise.
When all of the above–let's call it "humanity vanity" aspect–gets organised, the fundamentals too become stronger. Food, for instance. The onset of winter or the Shutdown Quarter (Vacation Quarter, if you look at it) can be focussed towards sowing Rabi crops, which will be harvested in Summer. The water saved from shutdown can ensure there are no water issues for something as important as food. And if, like rain water harvesting, even terrace farming at basic levels is also made mandatory, the now relatively-free people can grow their own food. All this will ensure that when it comes to food, there are no heavy dependencies on the monsoon, and there will be food through the year. In fact, we can even do away with the long storage of food and eat fresher and seasonal food which has manifold benefits. Besides, with Nature in balance, monsoons will be more reliable.
Another way in which we could incorporate Naturocracy is by allowing the local and regional crops to flourish. In the course of millions of years, a whole lot of life evolved and developed around the vegetation of a particular region. If that goes completely kaput just, just so that we want kiwis or some other exotic food in the desert of Rajasthan, gradually the ecosystem around it also goes kaput. And we all know the rest that follows. So maybe a cap of up to 25 percent on 'alien' crops or food that is to be grown in a particular region can help widely. One might argue that it's against the farmer's freedom to ask him what to grow. Or against one's own freedom on what's to be eaten. Again, like most of Naturocracy's ideas just sound scarier than they are. To address the former, no farmer is "passionate" about growing wheat or sugarcane. They grow them only because it is profitable or a legacy passed on by their ancestors. If every farmer of a region grow what grows locally, each and every crop will be in demand. They are free to export them wherever they want to. In fact, the agricultural breadth and scope will only increase. And of course, they can still grow these 'alien' crops at up to a 25 percent capacity. And as for the eater, they are free to purchase whatever they want from the markets. Of course, it'll cost them a bit more, but the regional ones will cost them way lesser. And biologically, it'll suit them better. Overall, it balances out.
Not just locally or nationally, even if Naturocracy became a global phenomenon (wow!), the arrangement would still work out beautifully. The contrasting seasons in the two hemispheres would complement each other, and the traded food would be indigenous, seasonal and yet available through the year if need be.
Another aspect of agriculture, be it local or 'alien' crops, that needs to be corrected is the encouragement of trees and fruits. Farms have just replaced forest land over centuries. The same old crops spread acre upon acre, ruining all ecosystem. Instead of deer or bears roaming the lands, only pests visit the lands. And they too are killed by constant spraying of pesticides, further polluting our food. These crops end up sucking more water than the forest there would have, and gradually the soil degrades. Further, affecting river patterns and a host of other things. Regional food will encourage variety, and making tree food mandatory at a minimum cap of 25 percent to begin with, will be a great start. Trees will bring in all kinds of fruits which we rarely eat, in the markets, and consequently in our nutrition. They'll keep the soil erosion in check and if not the tiger, at least a few more birds will start coming back. A great project on agroforestry is already underway in India, which has the potential to radically revive the rivers. That's the power and importance of varied vegetation. So while agroforestry might already be popular by the time Naturocracy catches up (if it ever does!), all we might have to focus on is regional or local crops.
And now comes the sensitive part about food. Non-veg. Well, leaving all the ethical aspects aside, if one were to keep just the objective of keeping Nature's cycle in balance in mind, all major species in all food chain slots need to be kept in balance. We can't have 20 billion chicken, 1.5 billion cows, 2 billion pigs, bred and forcefully just for the sake of being eaten at the cost of all other species. Even if the Atlantic Ocean turned into a grassland, it couldn't sustain the rate of growth of these animals. The natural food chain has to be brought back and preserved, at least at a broad level to begin with. The numbers of these meat-industry animals has to be regulated. The cheeky answer of 'well, we'll eat them to reduce their numbers' aside, their numbers have to be brought down even before their birth. One way to go about calculating how many would suffice would be, we first account for how much of forest cover is essential in a country. (This will also curb mindless homogeneous agriculture discussed in the previous paragraph) This forest land remains untouched, uncompromised. Now from the remaining land, after deducting agricultural land and the human dwellings bit (including the future growth requirements), we see how much vegetation remains. Now only this vegetation is what the cattle and chicken can graze upon. Unfortunately, poor cattle and chicken can longer roam around freely as people only see dollars in them. But even if they are raised in poultry farms, the animal feed required comes from processing vegetation. So we reverse-calculate how much animal feed can the remaining land can afford, and accordingly come to the number of chicken and cattle we can force-breed for the sake of food.
And if we are willing to spare them a better life, we can add one more step. We can make it a rule to have at least 50 percent of these food-animals live a normal free life, and only when they are old enough do they become food. The equivalent of "organic" in meat. It has a host of health benefits too. The meat industry can take a leaf or two out of India's dairy industry (at least theoretically), in spite of it having separate dynamics. There are countless ways we can make the process better and efficient. This is just of them that seemed to work for me. The purpose of these suggestion are illustrative and not sacrosanct.
The only drawback would be limited and expensive meat. On the whole, it's a fair trade-off. Instead of eating meat daily, 3 times a day, it might drop two thrice a week maybe. And now we all know the ill effects of excessive meat consumption not just on our health, but the planet's ecosystem. So it's not only a fair "trade-off", it's a gift. But does this mean, you won't be free to have meat whenever you want? Nope. You can have all the meat you want to, even 5 times a day. It'll just be a lot more expensive. One argument would be, the rich will eat most of the meat. Well, in that case the rich will die faster if it's a solace. Nonetheless, even if meat does become expensive, it'll be compensated by the other food becoming cheaper and more nutritious. So, overall, it might end up being only marginally expensive. Because non-veg food still has its veggies and grains.
Similarly, even the fishing industry adjust their activity as per seasons. Countless species of fish absolutely necessary in regulating the ocean currents are just getting wiped off. A seasonal approach can go a long way in balancing their numbers and the consumption.
Not just fish, there are many other "non-edible" lesser-known species which determine the patterns of Nature. Naturocracy will encourage an understanding and the respective adapting from our end by making small tweaks in the way we operate. For instance, if some migratory birds which fly in tens of thousands (I wonder if they still do. Ideally, there are many which should be doing so) are known to take a particular route, we just change the routes of our planes for a while. If an absolutely essential factory is affecting an absolutely necessary sea life, then the factory makes way. All policies should first and foremost consider the natural order before getting implemented. Yes, there will of course be debates and conflict of interest. But at least, all options to retain natural balance have to be considered genuinely and seriously before bulldozing our way, which largely seems to be the case presently. This will pave for humans making selfish decisions only when they must. An elaborate process has to be set-up to ensure the integrity of human efforts towards "fair consideration" of other lives. And if principles of Naturocracy are the guiding lights, the decision-making won't be a complicated process. All other ideologies come next, only when the platform of our eco-system is stable. And as for progress, there's always some place on earth where our activities can be conducted with minimal impact. It's just that in some cases it'll work out expensive. Our phones might be a bit expensive, our skincare products might be a little expensive, but a healthy eco-system is great for your skin, and the pictures we click from our phones will be picturesque. Incorporating Naturocracy will curb down corrupt business practices which at any cost, only look for the cheapest way of manufacturing, therefore bringing all kinds of poisons in our air, water and food.
One important aspect to maintain this balance is keeping human populations in check. So how does Seasonal Shift help it, you ask. Well, this might sound controversial or even blasphemous, but that's just the sound of it. In essence, it's miraculous. Suppose, humans conceive their babies too in the last two quarters–the Transition Quarter and the Shutdown Quarter (it is really a Vacation Quarter–just that it doesn't sound erudite) Which means they'll have babies either in Summer or the next Transition Quarter. It just becomes a boon for the parents, especially the mothers. Suppose, the baby is conceived in the Transition Quarter, and when the baby is born in the Summer Quarter, the mother can take maternity leave for that quarter. The following Transition Quarter is already a period of slowdown. And then comes the Shutdown Quarter which is anyway a free time. This guarantees almost a whole year for mothers to devote to their kids without stressing extremely about jobs and shit. It just puts parents in a relaxed frame of mind. And besides, unplanned babies will come down and will give parents more time to plan their babies. Also, when kids are born in the Summer Quarter or even the Transition Quarter, the world will be open, therefore all the facilities and the required help will be available. (Of course, essential services will be available through the year. We'll come to that in a bit)
Of course, one can decide to take off for how many ever years one might for the baby. But the beauty of Naturocracy is that it allows a leeway for those who can't afford not to work. So does this mean Naturocracy bans baby conceiving in any other time of the year? Nope. In Naturocracy, there's no curbing of freedom. There's just, delay. One can go ahead and have a baby whenever they want. Just that if the baby is born in the Shutdown Quarter, medical convenience will be expensive and sparse. Medical inconvenience rather. Because, everyone's on a holiday, remember? So coming to the essential services–medical, law & order, etc. They will be functional even in the Shutdown Quarter. But the one-fourth capacity will be on an annual rotational basis, with double pay and compensatory quarter off. And probably, for the first time in human history–apart from just showers and praises–their sacrifices will be justly rewarded. This will also not make people shy away from enrolling towards essential services, which happens to be the scary trend now.
So, don't I have the freedom to make my baby an Aries baby, you ask? What sort of an evil world this is, you claim? Well, as discussed, the option is always there. Just that it's harder. Besides, almost all creatures have peak breeding season. Including mosquitoes. They are thriving, aren't they? It has manifold physiological benefits too. But why is this so important? It is. Because if the populations continue to grow in this brazen way, well, one might have the freedom of having an Aries baby (isn't Sun Signs irrelevant anyways?) but not the freedom to give her or him a good life. Imagine, 30 years later: you're having a glass of water and you feel guilty about it. Because there's a constant raging social media debate going on about how millions are dying of thirst. And that would be the reality too. But this time, you just can't avoid it. Imagine, you bought your kid a new shirt. Everyone's going to judge the hell out of the shirt for the carbon footprint it left, especially when you bought a shirt only the previous week. You'll actually have to justify that the dog tore the shirt while playing. Apart from the actual strife, there is a chance of a constant mental strife. The middle class' every basic will be under scrutiny. The lower economic class perhaps won't even have the option to accept scrutiny. And of course, the super-wealthy, like always, will get away. They'll probably donate a few hundred litres of water while their kids play in indoor swimming pools. Heck, while their dads own rivers. This easily could be the reality if populations aren't checked. It already is, in many places. In my opinion, avoiding birth for half a year is a good trade-off. One might argue that we might still end up producing just as many babies in those allowed six months or the two quarters. Well, as hypothesised earlier, it is likely that unplanned babies might reduce drastically. And often, when one has to wait for six months to have a baby, many might change their mind, further postponing it. Even if 20 percent postpone it, it gets postponed by a year. And, (a bit of a dark trivia!) data shows that a lot more people die in winters. So for a whole six months, the planet lives with a lesser human footprint. Of course, this Two Quarter baby clause might not cause a vast reduction in the initial few years, but as people realise and live the gifts of Naturocracy, the numbers will voluntarily reduce. Ideally, there should be just one more rule which discourages babies in gaps of less than five years. That sounded extreme? Well, that is why the less extreme solution was provided in the first place. As a matter of fact, another extreme scenario awaits us if we don't course-correct. The signs of which are already visible. People in the really advanced and capitalistic nations are just choosing not to have babies. And those that are having in the lesser developed countries, can't devote enough time and care. All for the obvious reasons of stress, poverty, helplessness, and the fear of bringing a baby into such a world (reminder: Naturocracy addresses them.) It won't be surprising if in the coming decades, we'll just have a population of a lot of old people, not strong enough to keep the world going on a day-to-day basis. And the younger ones, one can speculate, won't be the most suitable to take care of the world and all the old people around them. Yes, population might plateau, but not in the most ideal way. Which is why, balance baby! And I reiterate (pardon me, I will continue doing so) in Naturocracy, the rules of balance are not mine or yours or God's nephew's. It is all around, for everyone to see.
If we further incorporate yet another basic cycle of nature to govern and guide our activity, there's the simple 'day and night' one. Now in this frantic rush of being in this mad competition to "change" the world by the next Monday, whether one likes it or not, we're all getting sucked into just working and working and working. All those labour laws and stuff like that are just on paper. Gladly, people put nameplates outside their offices which apart from the name also has office timings. Usually saying, 5:30 pm. There's no better joke than that. If some lonely divorcee or a workaholic who wants to reach an impossible target set by the management, ends up being the leader of an organisation, then God save the people there. In the name of "culture" and with a few extra bucks, they all become slaves. The next door company feels the pinch, and replicates this. And soon enough as it is today, the entire world is infected with mindless hurry to please some lazy "customer" who demands "delight".
But who's to stop that lonely divorcee. Or that greedy workaholic. Or for that matter, even that ambitious visionary. And on what basis? It's completely normal to distract yourself with work when personal life is going nowhere. It is completely noble to dream of changing the world. And being in a hurry for the same. Humanity even owes some great accomplishment to such people. Everyone has their priorities and reasons. So who decides who should work how and when? Well, Nature can decide. And for exactly the same reason of everyone having their own priorities. Many want to spend time with their kids. Many want to tend to their aging parents. Many want to just watch a movie peacefully. This too is as normal as a person wanting to change the world. And it is not fair to deprive anyone of this just because someone has the endless money to "invest" and thus the power to crack the whip constantly. Both types of people have the freedom, but clearly there's a conflict in their freedoms. And when there's such ambiguity, the more "powerful freedom" wins. Besides, from the ecosystem's perspective, there's just no break in the damages we do. There's noise pollution, light pollution, air pollution, destruction of habitats and degradation of resources, 24 X 7. In short, in the absence of any wisdom or general rules, we're just working away day and night towards our own destruction.
So, therefore, we seek clarity on this grey area from our dear Nature. And she spells it our so clearly. Day. And night. Of course there's no rule that humans are not nocturnal. Humans can be whatever they want to be. (Exactly why we are even having this conversation) But in the face of practicality and the context of maintaining overall natural balance, it is obvious that we choose day time as our primary operating time.
Of course, we have come too far ahead just to stop everything at night. We don't have to. We just have to bring, to begin with, humanity's energy consumption during nights to 25 per cent (ideally, 40 per cent!) A host of solutions come to mind, some "harsh", some "cool"; all debatable, workable, even impractical. The point really is illustrative. Suppose, all the heavy energy consumption industries mandatorily shut down post night fall. No smoke, no noise, no constant buzz and whirr. A break for us and a break for countless nocturnal lives.
And as for all the other "softer" industries, who for some reason are caught up in the chaotic structures, and need to sometimes be nocturnal, they compensate. Suppose we customise electricity meters. Which after nightfall, run 5 times faster. All businesses will do their best to wind up on time or bring in processes that will consider this aspect.
And other businesses–shops, restaurants, et cetera, which are in the "non-essential" bracket can have meters that will run 3x in nights. The key is, a business should not gain excessively over the competition in spite of willing to keep it open in the nights and pay the extra fare. That should guide our energy pricing. Else, paying extra for night-electricity will just become factored in everyone's costs and everything will remain the same.
What about our night lives, you ask? What about other things, which we would find the time for, only after work? We can circumvent this by making weekends cheat days for the night rule. Or alternate days as cheat days. Or we can have a weekly system, where every alternate week night-rules are exempted. Besides, it is obvious that all shops can remain open longer than offices by a few more hours. If people leave offices by 4 30, stores and shops can remain open till 7. Needless to say, all "essential" businesses will be allowed. We can't have hospitals, grocery stores, et cetera, shut.
The above were largely from the point of view of light pollution. We can in fact even completely do away with rules against shops and stores, if the bigger light-polluter (and even greater noise-polluter and air-polluter) can be taken care of. Automobiles. Their glaring head-lights (which are becoming more powerful and white! for some reason) single-handedly ruin the ambience of a place and destroy all peace. I bet all kinds of birds and other creatures important to the eco-system have long fled the place, out of the sheer terror of their sounds. If by some miracle, the world switches completely to electric, we can go softer on our shops and stores. Nonetheless, the lights from automobiles is still ugly if not too problematic. So public transport should be encouraged. It should just be made free in the night. Go wherever, whenever, all free before dawn. But it's imperative the public transport is zero-emission, and noise free. Of course, with the night-cap on businesses, most people won't have anywhere to go. Only the leisurely, the young, the full-of-life will roam around. And roam around they should. Without stress and a mad rush. The limited reasons for the majority to travel during nights, coupled with all the excess electricity fare and other fines, free public transport will be easily affordable.
Also, imagine this: office gets done at 4:30. Post 6:30, free transport. Many would wait out and finish their chores, their catching-up and other needful and leisurely things. This would also give stores and shops more than enough customers, and they too can like the rest of us can go home early and chill in their lives.
What are the positives to take all this pain, you ask? Well, the primary reason, be reminded, is giving the rest of the nature a breather from our frantic activity. Does that mean our lives will become shit, if we do these "sacrifices" for nature? Well, not if you like your kids playing outside late into the night without the fear of them being run over by vehicles. Not if the night sky is lovely with stars and an unbridled moon (if the clouds allow). Not if you like conversations with family and friends to the background of crickets chirping. Not if the night air is fresher on your walks to the milk-parlour. Not if you can let your pets free. Nights will be more enriching compared to the disasters they are now.
The day-night is just one more aspect to illustrate how we can sync our lives with Nature to reap untold benefits. Countless aspects can be designed better just by seeing a slightly bigger picture. For instance, one thing that I never understood (unless there's some super-duper complex science to it) is why do we have concrete footpaths. Not all footpaths are on drainage lines. If only we could leave the footpath ground alone, the ground water would be way better. All the rain water would seep in. Similarly, why don't the roads have perforations for the rain water to seep in? Miles after miles, for thousands of them, we just have hard obstinate surfaces. The only reason I see for this is, so that the mud doesn't stick to our shoes lest we dirty the house. Or, all sorts of wild weeds would grow. So what? I would, in fact, suggest half the streets become kaccha again. All the ones in residential areas. They are a lot more eco-friendly, a lot more fun, and by the virtue of bumpiness, a lot more safer–no one would ride like a maniac on such streets and the playing kids are automatically safer. But what about all that slush in the monsoon? Well, look where we have gotten; that very monsoon is being elusive now.
Like these, we can make countless big and small improvements. We just have to, I repeat, keep the bigger picture in mind. A picture that doesn't have only humans but the rest of the creation too. Of course, it would be an evolving thing. There will be practical hindrances, and there will be a shifting-strife. But it is a bridge we must cross before we are stuck at the cliff and at our heels is Tragedy.
Naturocracy is not a replacement of democracy. Ideally, it's an evolution of democracy. It is just a democracy which sees a slightly bigger picture of the world that comprises of not just humans. It just accepts the truth that humans, despite all our capabilities, are at the end of the day part of nature and aren't an infallible world of their own. Sure, some may hypothesize that humans will only continue to grow smarter and eventually we will be able to control and recreate everything, independent of Nature; and we won't really need it. Maybe, who knows. But until that happens, we better behave like we are part of it. Besides, why take the hard and complicated way, when there's an easy, tried and tested way. It just requires us to make a few changes which are not even hard. In fact, they are full of perks. The principles of Naturocracy is not something unique. It has been tried and tested for millennia. Perhaps, it was how once most of humanity even operated. Not politically, but just naturally. By wisdom and common sense. Many spiritual cultures, even today, adopt a lifestyle that is in sync with nature to enhance their lives. Unfortunately, it is become a "spiritual" thing, and for masses it has been relegated to a few days of festivals, where Nature is acknowledged and its cycles appreciated, but tossed away the next day. But, today, with humanity's sheer numbers and tech power and frantic activity, it has to become a mass thing again. It has to become a governance thing. And for that it has to take on a political flavour or garner a revolution-ish appeal, something which can bring all the fragmented efforts across the world under one clear-cut agenda. Because there is no real way around Naturocracy or any other form of it, if extinction and self-destruction is not the goal.
But realistically speaking, even if one were to wake up to miraculously find acceptance of Naturocracy in all corners of the world among all kinds of people, it would still take years to become a global public demand. And by the time the slow machinery of our world processed it, refined it and brought it to life, the severe effects of climate change could already be upon us. Maybe that's the unfortunate time when it will be a lucrative option. However, it will still be an option only if things begin moving in its direction now.
