Draft of Ecology of Peace Scientific and Cultural law legislation under Ecology of Peace scientific and cultural law: i.e. draft of EoP Scientific and Cultural law definition.
All EoP NWO SCO policies, including the Ecology of Peace Scientific and Cultural Law [PDF] definition are being submitted to EoP Axis [eop-axis.tygae.org.za] Nations Presidents via their South African Ambassadors, for their consent, editing and/or objections, to implement EoP Scientific and Cultural law as international law; in EoP TRC legal negotiations filed in George High Court: Case 111/19: LJ v Lindiwe Sisulu [lj-v-ls.tygae.org.za] on 16 May 2019 [16 May: Court Filings with George High Court Registrar & SA Sheriff].
EoP Applicants [eop-applicants.tygae.org.za] TRC: Truth & Reconciliation [eoptrc-akcoldwar.tygae.org.za] process advocate’s the implementation of an EoP Scientific and Cultural Law [eop-scicultlaw.tygae.org.za] as international law that shall (a) require all citizens of all races, religions, nations, to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits [eop-footprint.tygae.org.za]; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool [crimes-of-aggression.tygae.org.za]; (b) nationalizes all property [eop-sdwipecon.tygae.org.za] and provide all responsible freedom [responsible-freedom.tygae.org.za] oath [eop-axis-oath.tygae.org.za] citizens a property ration [property-ration.tygae.org.za] to enable their shelter and survival self-sufficiency to enable the rebuilding of a relocalized low-tech organic agrarian sustainable future.
Furthermore: if or when EoP intl law is implemented; EoP Scientific and Cultural Law [eop-scicultlaw.tygae.org.za] international law shall allow (a) groups with subjective racial, religious& gender culture-conflict identities; who are willing to adopt responsible freedom [responsible-freedom.tygae.org.za] procreation, consumption and informed consent lifestyle changes, with cultural law territorial self rule [cult-law-self-rule.tygae.org.za], enabling a higher degree of orderly and humane deindustrialization and depopulation.cooperation through the sharing of sub-cultural lifestyle values; in such self rule communities; (b) EoP Axis cooperating nations to ban all WiP immigration.
EoP Scientific & Cultural Law
Simplistically and objectively RH believes humans committed to honourably evaluating their cultural subjective reality beliefs or working hypothesis conclusions can agree on two ‘objective reality truth’ principles:
1. Carrying Capacity Limits:
The earth is not flat. Resources are not infinite. Humans share this planet with other humans and other animal and plant species. None have an inalienable right to exterminate the others (any human group who decides they have such inalienable right to breed or consume above carrying capacity limits and exterminate others for their own greed (not need) should not be surprised if other groups consider them to be a planetary security threat to the survival of all other species).
Conclusion: Humans have a ‘right’ to breed and consume upto ecological carrying capacity limits, and no further. Humans who breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits are consciously or unconsciously thieving other humans or species resources; without their consent.
2. Fully Informed Consenting agreements:
No humans or animal wants to be coerced or forced to be a slave to any other species; without their clear and fully informed consent to such relationship.
Conclusion: Any eco-innocent human procreating and consuming below carrying capacity limits can engage in whatever behaviour they choose, with any other eco-innocent; as long as both consent to whatever behaviour they are engaged in with each other; and other eco-innocents affected by such behaviour have no objections.
Ecological Carrying Capacity — Eco Footprint — Scientific Law refers to:
- Procreation below carrying capacity limits.
- Consumption below carrying capacity limits.
Human Nature Scientific Law refers to:
- Fully Informed Consenting Agreements.
Violations of Scientific Law are referred to as Crimes of Aggression, which can be breeding, consumption and/or violation of consent crimes of aggression.
Cultural law refers to any racial, religious, gender cultural value agreed upon, and codified in a written agreement between two or more individuals, which does not violate any of the scientific laws; enabling a greater degree of cooperation and mutual assistance support between such individuals.
Individuals Rights and Duties under Cultural Law include: Cultural Law Territorial Self Rule for Groups with Subjective Racial, Religious& Gender Culture-Conflict Identities.
Violations of Cultural Law would fall under Crimes of Aggression: Violations of Fully Informed Consent.
Conflict of Cultural Law Violations: Violations of Cultural Law between two individuals or groups of individuals with different Cultural Laws, would be adjudicated in terms of Scientific Law: Crimes of Aggression: Violations of Fully Informed Consent.
Generally How Would EoP Scientific and Cultural International Law Work?:
As excerpted from EoP Axis Legal Licencing [eop-axis-leglic.tygae.org.za]: Once EoP Scientific and Cultural Law [eop-scicultlaw.tygae.org.za] is implemented as National and/or International Law: the sentencing/punishment for citizens who are found negligently and/or intentionally guilty of Breeding, Consumption and/or Deception Crimes of Aggression are detailed at Crimes of Aggression [crimes-of-aggression.tygae.org.za]:
Breeding, Consumption & Deception Crimes of Aggression:
Breeding & Consumption Crimes of Aggression:
“Any individual who is found guilty of advocating on behalf of, legislating, enforcing, or obeying any – cultural, religious, common, statutory, constitutional, or international – ‘scarcity combatant’ social contract; which enables or advocates on behalf of human procreation, consumption or production of resources that transgress ecological carrying capacity limits, is guilty of the ‘crime of aggression act of war’.”
Crimes of Aggression Acts of War Convictions & Sentencing:
Consumption Violation Sentences:
Individuals found negligently guilty of violating consumption social contract limits; would be required to (a) relinquish their excess consumed products; and provide community service labour; to the extent of the infraction.
Individuals found intentionally guilty of violating consumption social contract limits; shall be provided the opportunity to (a) choose their preferred method of state assisted suicide; (b) be granted the opportunity to say goodbye to loved ones and (c) be eliminated from the planetary genepool by their preferred method of state assisted suicide.
Procreation Violation Sentences:
Individuals found guilty of negligently violating procreation social contract limits; would be required to be permanently sterilized.
Individuals found guilty of intentionally violating procreation social contract limits; would be required to (a) relinquish said child for adoption – if wanted to be adopted by a family – and be given their choice as to how they prefer to be humanely executed; (b) if no adoptive family is found; parents and child are to be given their choice as to how they prefer to be humanely executed.
Deception Communication Crimes of Aggression:
Fully Informed Consensual Relating Violation Sentences:
Individuals found guilty of negligently violating ‘Fully Informed Consenting Honourable Discourse’ aka ego-literacy [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za] as part of their inter-relating agreements; shall be required to attend and graduate from a Fully Informed Consenting Honourable Discourse’ communication values aka ego-literacy class; where they would learn how to communicate their preferences and relate to others in accordance to Fully Informed Consenting Communication values aka ego-literacy; and sign a Fully Informed Consenting Agreement Responsible Freedom Declaration to graduate.
Individuals found guilty of intentionally violating ‘Fully Informed Consenting Honourable Discourse’ as part of their inter-relating agreements; shall be provided the opportunity to (a) choose their preferred method of state assisted suicide; (b) be granted the opportunity to say goodbye to their loved ones and (c) be eliminated from the planetary genepool by their preferred method of state assisted suicide.
– EoP Scientific and Cultural Law [eop-scicultlaw.tygae.org.za].
Here follows a slightly edited practical example EoP MILED Clerk suggested to former Judge Jason Brent and Footprint Scientists- published at EoP Leg Sub: 19 Dec: J Brent, CC: GFN, Chefurka & Murtaugh:  EoP Re: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization: #24 & 34: What is Sustainable Footprint? – of how Scientific and Cultural [eop-scicultlaw.tygae.org.za] international law would work in a case were an individual is accused of advocating on behalf of overconsumption and/or is physically engaged in overconsumption crimes of aggression [crimes-of-aggression.tygae.org.za]:
As the legal enforcement of EoP Scientific and Cultural [eop-scicultlaw.tygae.org.za] breeding/consumption international law occurs; more research will be done on carrying capacity footprint limits for the different eco-regions; as part of the legal evidentiary truthseeking process. Each eco-region’s footprint will determine the size of a responsible freedom citizen in that eco-regions property ration [property-ration.tygae.org.za]. For example: All nations will have a Consumption Footprint database, and there shall be an international consumption global footprint database. The national footprint database will include consumption footprint info for all the eco-regions in that nation; adjusted to the global eco-footprint average property ration: 7.2 gha at a population of 1 billion, or 72 gha at population of 100 million as per suggested EoP Scientific: eco-footprint carrying capacity international law.
Example: Advocacy in violation of Consumption/Procreation Limits:
Jeremy, a facebook friend of Richard noticed that Richard posted a facebook status advocating on behalf of overconsumption/population. Jeremy informs Richard that advocating on behalf of overconsumption/population is illegal, and advises Richard to remove the post advocating on behalf of overconsumption/population and apologize. Richard (a) agrees that his post was negligently advocating on behalf of overconsumption/population, removes it and apologizes; or (b) disagrees that his post was advocating on behalf of overconsumption; and so Jeremy and Richard go to civil court. The court finds Richard (i) innocent; Jeremy apologizes to Richard for her sincere but incorrect overconsumption/population interpretation; (ii) negligently guilty: Richard is required to go to ego & eco-literacy [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za] consumption/procreation classes to learn about what kind of behaviours are overconsumption/procreation behaviours; (iii) intentionally guilty of consumption crimes of aggression [crimes-of-aggression.tygae.org.za]: the penalty for which is honourable death: Richard is allowed to remove his gene’s from the genepool by means of her preferred assisted suicide preference, by a certain date.
Example: Engaging in physical violation of Procreation Limits:
The action I am initially proposing is value neutral and does not favor or harm any individual or group. The action I am proposing will be applied to every person or group without favoring anyone. The action is very simple—limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. In simple terms a couple is limited to one and only one child—not one child for the male and one child for the female.
These limitations would be applied to every single human being without regard to race, religion, national origin or anything else and it would be absolute, no exceptions. It would be applied without regard for wealth, or the lack of wealth, and it would be applied without regard for the country of birth or residence of either the male or female. It would be applied without regard to intelligence, or the lack thereof, and without regard of the ability of the male or female to function in society. (At a later date when a method was agreed upon relating to dividing human beings into two groups, the ability to function in society would be considered in relation to who could or could not reproduce.) The right to either father a child or for a female to give birth could not be sold or transferred; it would be personal to the individual. If a live child were born with a birth defect or with some other disability it would not permit either the father or mother to produce another child. Each couple would have the right to have all appropriate pre-natal tests to determine if the child in the womb would be born with a birth or genetic defect and if the chance existed that the child would be born with such a defect to have an abortion.
Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. If the female cannot or refuses to provide the name of the father she and the child shall be immediately executed. All of the ideas set forth in this paragraph may be considered horrible and inhumane. However, since they will be applied equally, no individual or group is harmed except to the extent that an individual cannot either father or give birth to a second child. The harm caused to the individual and the harm caused to all of humanity by enforcing the one child rule set forth above is miniscule compared to the harm which all of humanity would suffer if population were not reduced.
Since the birth of a child is very hard to hide, there must be communal responsibility and accountability for any attempt to do so. Those who knowingly failed to report the birth of a second or any higher number of children would themselves be subject to the very same severe punishment that would be meted out to the parents of the second or higher numbered child—no religious, cultural or ethnic exemptions would obtain. Humanity cannot consider the evasion of the single child rule a game to be played with a minor penalty, if caught. No group or individual could be permitted any evasion of the one child rule a that would lead to a disparity among groups and among individuals causing irreparable harm to the entire system established to reduce population. Should this sanction seem barbaric or draconian, it is surely less draconian in its effects than the merciless verdict of nature upon a species that refuses to contain its expansion.
In order for this proposal to be fair, equitable and workable, society and governments would be required to take action today to provide the means for every human being to control his or her fertility, to give everyone on the face of the earth the ability to limit birth to a single child. Governments would be required to devote a whatever portion of their Gross Domestic Product is necessary to the provision of artificial birth control devices of any and all types including sterilization, at low or no cost as appropriate, to their citizens, no matter the age of the citizens once a citizen reaches the age he/she can physically reproduce. This would also include instruction as how to use the devices. This would also include education of both males and females that the birth of a second child would result in the execution of the father and mother as well as the child. Governments would be required to provide safe, as much as any medical procedure can be safe, and low cost or free access to abortion. If any person, either male or female, had more than two failures of birth control devices, it would be conclusively presumed that the person was unable to use birth control devices and the person would be physically and permanently sterilized.
If poor nations were unable to devote the necessary funds to accomplish the one child rule in five years, the rich nations of the world would be required to assist the poor nations, after an evaluation that the poor nations were doing the best they could under some reasonable standard. Since survival of our species depends on reducing population below the current 6.7 billion humans now alive, the necessary funds to establish the system to control population must be made available. It should be emphasized that a “One-Child-Per-Family” (OCPF) law that is almost completely effective will not suffice. It must be totally and universally effective. After a five year preparation period, the rule must be enforced. The reduction in population would continue under the one child rule until all of humanity agreed upon the method and criteria necessary to implement the two group solution described herein. Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method and criteria of the two group solution until it reached 300 million or some other lower number agreed upon by humanity. The number finally agreed upon would be based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years. And 25,000 years is infinitely small when compared to the 160 million years the dinosaurs ruled the earth.
No doubt any proposal that would recommend capital punishment for transgressors of the One-Child-Per-Family law presently evokes immediate revulsion and rejection. Outside the context of an imminent die-off, given our heritage of moral, religious and cultural programming, I would be surprised if it didn’t. An example which shows that morality changes when circumstances change follows. Any Londoner who proposed in August 1938 that the Royal Air Force should one day bomb German cites with women and children in them would be summarily dismissed as a callous barbarian. But just two years later Londoners were clamoring for that action. Reality has a way of effecting abrupt ethical changes. What is not presently comprehended by almost all of humanity is that we are now in an emergency. Our species is on the brink of an unparalleled catastrophe—our destruction and the destruction of our civilization. It is a matter of complete indifference to me that many, if not all, readers will find the execution of anyone having a second child to be horrible and against every moral precept they learned or understood was applicable to humanity. The problem is not that my prescriptions are immoral or horrible. Rather the problem is that the situation humanity finds itself in is horrible. I will now remind the readers that under the law I propose every individual would be well aware of the consequences of flouting the law. Which of the two evils is worse— a) executing anyone who knowingly violates the one child rule; or b) not reducing population such that the vast majority or probably all of humanity is destroyed? Under this system fertility drugs would not be permitted or if they were permitted and used, only one child would be permitted to be born alive or the rest would be destroyed at birth, if more than one were born alive. If a women gave birth to more than one child and fertility drugs or any other actions to increase fertility or the number of children born were not the cause, those children would be permitted to live. Each individual will have a very clear choice—execution or birth control or sterilization or abortion or abstinence.
– SQSwans: Humans: An Endangered Species V: A Proposal: How to Determine Who Can and Who Cannot Reproduce; by Judge Jason Brent.
» EoP Leg Sub: EoP v WiP DeIndustrialization and Depopulation.
Example: Engaging in physical violation of Consumption Limits:
Julian is accused by Thomas of overconsumption in London, UK. Julian and Thomas go to the London library to input Julian’s consumption footprint data into the library’s consumption footprint calculator database. Julian and Thomas still disagree about the accuracy of their input data or the output results; and so they decide to go to London Footprint court. Julian and Thomas provide the Clerk of the Court with their Julian consumption data; a Footprint police investigator checks it for accuracy; and the consumption data is submitted into the Court footprint calculator. Julian is found (a) innocent; Thomas apologizes in writing for his sincere but mistaken allegation and goes to a consumption footprint course to learn to accurately measure consumption footprint inputs; (b) negligently guilty: Julian apologizes in writing and goes to a consumption footprint course to learn to accurately measure consumption footprint inputs; (c) negligently and/or intentionally guilty: Julian disputes (i) the accuracy of one or more consumption factors measured in the Footprint calculator’s sustainability accuracy; and/or (ii) the finding of his deliberate intentional violation: so the matter goes to court for Julian to provide the court with his evidence in support of the IPAT factors inaccuracy; and/or mitigation of deliberate intentional violation. If the Judge considers some of Julian’s evidence indicating that particular consumption factors for the eco-region are inaccurate to be reasonable; the Judge can recommend a truthseeking enquiry investigation of those factors, or make a ruling in support of a change of that consumption factor for that eco-region in the footprint calculator database. If Julian is found intentionally guilty of consumption crimes of aggression [crimes-of-aggression.tygae.org.za]: the penalty for which is honourable death: Julian is allowed to remove his gene’s from the genepool by means of his preferred assisted suicide preference, by a certain date.
Similarly the crimes of aggression death penalty will be applicable for individuals in cases where: (i) if Jeremy, Richard, Julian or Thomas are found to have engaged in deliberate and/or malicious inaccurate data input statements to the Clerk; (ii) any Footprint Calculator scientists are found guilty of intentionally including inaccurate footprint data, or (iii) citizens found guilty of engaging in irregular methods to enter inaccurate footprint calculator data; (iv) citizens found guilty of breeding more than one child, or hiding information from the state about one child only breeding cheating.
» EoP Leg Sub: 19 Dec: J Brent, CC: GFN, Chefurka & Murtaugh:  EoP Re: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization: #24 & 34: What is Sustainable Footprint?; SQSwans: J Brent: Humans: An Endangered Species V: A Proposal: How to Determine Who Can and Who Cannot Reproduce.
Setup: 10 Feb 2017. [archive.is/XcTdH]
Last Updated: 22 Dec 2017. [archive.is/H4HFt]; 13 Mar 2018 [archive.is/j6gdd]; 16 May 2019.