A Simple Theory for God

[ken]

In the physical sense human bodies are moving around the earth doing wrong, this can be a part of God. But the thoughts that caused those wrong behaviors are not a part of God. A part of God is the Mind, which wholeheartedly KNOWS right from wrong, but what is not a part of God but which is still a part of the Universe, is all those thoughts within human bodies that cause and create all the wrong and the ills in the world. So, to Me, God is NOT identical to Universe.

We part at this point. I do not believe in evil, demons, demonic entities, nothing like that. I believe in a balance in the tug-o-war games between growth and entropy, and between order and chaos. Not everyone is born to be a 'white hat". It's not their fault (although that does not preclude actions taken against to preserve public safety and order).

I am not sure what you are suggesting here. I also do NOT believe in those things BECAUSE I do NOT believe in any thing, except in the ability of Self to create and achieve anything that It truly wants to create and achieve, so at what point exactly do we part? Do you not agree that there are wrong thoughts within human bodies? Or do you think EVERY thought is right?

I did not say much more than that, other than those wrong thoughts are not a part of God, but they make up and are a part of the Universe. If you define God and Universe differently than Me, then that is fine and totally understandable. Each human being looks at and sees things differently. I do not expect otherwise. If you want to see God and Universe to mean the exact same, then that is also fine by Me. You can do whatever you choose to do.

To Me, however, the Universe has already become Self-conscious

A minuscule part of the universe has awoken. Almost all of it is still asleep, though.

If a minuscule part of the Universe has awoken, then as I was explaining earlier the Universe has then already evolved or come into Consciousness. The Universe will, also, keep evolving until full Consciousness is reached.

My guess is that God, as defined by the ancients, does not exist, although there may be something equally inspiring and encouraging going on in reality that we don't know about. However, godlike entities could conceivably evolve/develop in the far future.

Why do you presume the 'far' future? Is it because you think you are 'far' from learning and discovering these so called and perceived "mysteries" yet?

The "far future" because it will take many billions of years for life (or "post-life") to evolve to the point where they can spread intelligence around a largely insensate and unthinking cosmos.

How confident are you in your answer of many billions of years? How can you KNOW this now, before it actually happens? Do you have some kind of ability to see and know what will happen in the future?

The problem of timely interstellar travel remains unsolvable at this stage.

For some of us, obviously.

But, by the way, I do not see any problem here whatsoever.

[ken]

Lacewing - this is the best post i've seen you make

Well, thank you... but maybe you haven't been paying attention?? Nothing has changed for me... I have felt (and expressed) this all along (when I'm not cursing at people). I can't help but rally against the idea of some sort of BEING that we are all to be subservient to --

If I have heard of any idea that there is supposed to be some sort of BEING that we are all to be subservient to, then I would just laugh at that idea. The stupidity of it is to ridiculous to take seriously. The obvious fact that if there was such a BEING, then the very last thing that It would want was for any thing to be subservient to It.

For a species like the human being to think, let alone believe, that a BEING who is the sum of all of ITs parts and who has provided them with the freedom to change the thoughts they have, whenever they like, would also make them or even want them to be subservient to IT is bizarre in the most extreme way.

and that other men are to define and translate FOR US --

Is not nearly all knowledge obtained by others defining and translating FOR US? Is there not a whole education system in place to define and translate FOR US? Do we all as children learn by others defining and translating FOR US? Do we all not become products of others definitions and translations?

because that's just so twisted and lazy and convoluted and controlling.

And wrong. But that is how nearly all knowledge is gained, obtained, maintained, and becomes ingrained.

Do you never define and translate TO OTHERS?

There can never be any excuse to propose that one's own definition and/or translation is true, right, and/or correct, but is this defining and translating not just a natural process for human beings in learning, understanding, and reasoning?

Do human beings not become wiser by learning and understanding the definitions, interpretations, and translations of others?

From my perspective, there is no reason that we aren't ALL the eyes and spirits of creation... exploring and demonstrating ALL potentials... and NO ONE is more divine than anyone else.

Depending on the definition for we and NO ONE, from my perspective also, I will also agree.

So when people claim that they have some "insider track" to a god, I just think "Really? Boy could I show you some stuff... and I'm not a Christian!"

Not sure what a christian really has to do with God, but anyway, when you think this, are you open at all to listening to those people, or do you just think about what you could show them?

From my view, there is spirit EVERYWHERE... pulsating... like blood flow. It's just kind of sickening when people separate themselves out as being more divine than others.

Why is it sickening, to you?

If some thing is known to be not true, then how can that thing have and make such an affect on people?

What is it about you or human beings that a known untruth can have or cause an affect on you or them? Why do some untruths affect some more than others?

Just for your information lacewing I claim to KNOW a way to discovering, knowing, and understanding all of God, which by the way is Who I am anyway, but if you were to even begin to start assuming that, in any way whatsoever, implied or suggested that I was separating Me from absolutely any other thing or that I was more divine than absolutely any other thing, then you could not be any further from the Truth.

Just because some claim to have gained some knowledge, or discovered some way, that is no excuse to start making assumptions that could be totally and utterly wrong.

If you are going to assume, (or believe) absolutely anything BEFORE you begin to truly listen, then you will NEVER learn, and become wiser.

you appear to finally be contemplating God which is great to start with, but that you are actually looking at the concept beyond pre-conceived ideas about God.

I've been doing this a long time Atto. If some people don't understand what I'm saying because they are used to compartmentalizing everything in a somewhat conventional way, there's little I can do about that. I don't operate or speak (maybe) within conventional means much of the time. I think being a free spirit is the most beautiful form of divinity there is. All the rest seems convoluted to me.

Does free spirit mean being Open always and in all ways?

I've always been vexed that you talk about the connected energy of everything and seemed not to real eyes that there is only a small step to comprehend a being that is this very fabric of the universe and indeed reality.

Maybe that's because that's your view, and you can't imagine outside of it, perhaps? In my view, there is no SEPARATE being. We're all of the same stuff. We are the eyes and ears and hands and egos and fears of god. All of it. There is NO SEPARATE THING. To make something separate... to imagine something separate... is a human fantasy.

Is this your experience?

What does we mean here?

Can human beings be separated in any way, shape, or form?

I know you don't like it when i state my knowledge of this entity, but i'm not going to lie or hide what i have come to understand regarding its nature.

HONESTLY... if you gain inspiration and comfort and awareness from ANYTHING AT ALL... that's beautiful. What I challenge is when someone claims that their experience reflects a template or truth of ultimate reality for all.

From what I have noticed is you continually dismiss another wholeheartedly if they propose their experience reflects a template or truth of ultimate reality for all. Is this because you do not believe there is a template or truth of ultimate reality for all, OR, because you do not believe that one's experience CAN reflect a template or truth of ultimate reality for all? Or, something else?

Do you really think dismissing any thing BEFORE it has been completely heard and understood is a good way to learn or become wiser?

When someone says "I know God exists"... why don't they add on the end "for me"? Because that's what it is!!

I could not agree with this anymore, but do you add onto the end of everything you say "for me"? Because that is also what it is!!

We all have fantastic experiences that are real for us. Why do we need to fight to keep anyone from superimposing THEIR OWN REALITY/FANTASY onto us?

I certainly do not fight. I just express my views. But I have wondered before why you, yourself, try to superimpose YOUR OWN REALITY/FANTASY onto us. Maybe you can explain why you do that yourself, and then you will know WHY people fight regarding this issue.

I think it has past most people here but even in this very post of yours that I am replying to you "tried" to superimpose your own reality/fantasy onto us. (I say "tried" because on some it worked. But it did not work on all of us). If you also have not noticed the subliminal nature of this and are curious, then I will explain where it is. But it is done also just like it was last time we discussed this issue.

And then, even worse, why do we need to fight to keep theists from telling atheists how immoral or undirected they are? It's so absurd and disrespectful and stupid. I just don't understand how theists who make such claims can be that short-sighted and dumb.

I know why human beings continually refer to themselves and others as things, such as theists, atheists, et cetera, but if they just stopped doing that, then they would be a lot closer to discovering, seeing, and understanding what they really are. To label one's self or others as things that they really are not is really so absurd, disrespectful, and stupid. But I do know why they do this. I also understand how human beings who make such claims can be that short-sighted that they are not yet able to see the truth.

Well done on starting this thread.

Thank you. I'm very glad that you see value in what I've expressed.

I am a very spiritual person... just not a theist. I don't need or want a label as to what I am.

That is great, but why do you put labels onto others?

By the way if you do not need nor want a label, then WHY did you give yourself a label in the sentence immediately prior to that one?

I just hope that some people can see that I am authentically exploring and expressing the full spectrum right now, of what I see as ALL OF "GOD"/potential... with love and humor, but also with sharp swipes, meant to challenge conventions. It gets people's attention more than being Miss Nicey Nice. And it has taught me a lot about myself and other people in the process.

What have you learned about yourself so far?

Here's how I see it: It's ALL GOD.

Including all the abuse adult human beings do to innocent children, right?

Also, including all the waring, all the pollution, and all the other harm, damage, and killing that human beings do onto themselves and others, and onto the rest of their home as well right?

If so, then all God means to you is all there is. Is this right?

There is no separate being.

If there can be one part of God and other parts of God, then why can there not be a separate being?

If there is one human being, then is that being God also or is that being a part of God?

But we EACH may perceive one thing or another that blows our mind.

Who/what do you propose is the our, in our mind?

What do you propose is the mind?

And, how can that be blown?

In the end... we're all the same ONE!!

Yes, in the end. But in the beginning we have to look at, see, and understand what all of the truth is first BEFORE we can begin to see the end.

Whatever works for other people is fine as long as they don't tell me that their view is some sort of ultimate truth that applies to me whether I agree or not.

Why can they not tell you this? Are you not open to this? Will you instantly close up upon hearing this?

What about if they tell you that their is a view that might just be some sort of ultimate truth that applies to you?

What about if you are told that there is a view that applies to ALL, but that view only comes into existence when ALL happen to be in agreement. How do you feel and what do you want to do when you hear that view expressed?

What happens if there actually IS an ultimate truth that applies to you, whether you agree or not?

Answers to ALL of my questions would be very much welcomed and appreciated.

That's like one part of God telling another part of God what God is supposed to be.

Just maybe one part has already gained the knowledge of what God actually IS. Could that even be possible, to you? Or are you not open to that view?

Or, God might just be trying to talk to parts of Its Self, but, if some parts will NOT listen, then God might use other parts to talk for God.

For example some people might just actually be trying to express to you a Truth, which comes directly from God, but your views are preventing you from seeing and hearing this Truth?

Is is possible that some parts could already know the answer to Who I am, and know that I am God?

[ken]

Spirit
Allah
God
Enlightenment

There are many more words I am sure you could find and choose from.

The words I use already form together perfectly, painting a true and accurate picture. I am not looking for anything else in this regard.

You wouldn't be able to look for anything else since there is ONLY what's looking anyway and is every where and every thing. All that truly exists is the observer which cannot be seen or known by what it is looking at or seeing.
And that's just about as good as it's going to get, there is nothing outside of THIS immediate instantaneous observing...aka KNOWING AWARENESS

The problem with words is they are not the whole picture. Words divide. They appear as the picture, but are not the whole picture.. Words can appear to divide what is always and ever whole, but they cannot be used to make that division whole again, just as a pair of scissors can cut a whole piece of paper in two, but cannot be used to make the two one. But no matter, wholeness /oneness is like a stick ..it will always be a stick no matter how many times one cuts a bit off the end. No thing can divide oneness because oneness is already ''all things''

The answer to the question of what is God ..is not found in the conceptual picture of God... it is found in who or what's painting the picture in the first place. In other words, the painter is never in the picture, the picture is in the painter.

Reality is likened to a dream, the dreamer is not found in the dream. The dreamer is that in which the whole dream is arising. And there is only the dream.

Thank you for telling Me what YOU observe and do, and what YOU are incapable of observing and doing.

But just remember what you do, and what you can and can not do, IS NOT necessarily what I do, and what I can and can not do.

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer. So, what you see and do IS what you see and do. However, what I see and do IS what I see and do. There is a huge difference between you and I.

[Lacewing]

Answers to ALL of my questions would be very much welcomed and appreciated.

Sorry, Ken... it's not going to happen. Your floods of excessive questioning require way too much energy to respond to because, as I've told you before, they are full of your own projections which I have no interest in "clearing up" repeatedly... AND you keep asking questions that I've already answered. You truly do not ask as much of yourself as you ask of other people. I would like to see you take one of your posts where you've made all sorts of claims about what you know and who you are... and then ask your flood of questions about that, and then answer yourself. That would be far more interesting and informative than your excessive and inaccurate analysis and questioning of other people.

[ken]

Answers to ALL of my questions would be very much welcomed and appreciated.

Sorry, Ken... it's not going to happen. Your floods of excessive questioning require way too much energy to respond to because, as I've told you before, they are full of your own projections which I have no interest in "clearing up" repeatedly... AND you keep asking questions that I've already answered. You truly do not ask as much of yourself as you ask of other people. I would like to see you take one of your posts where you've made all sorts of claims about what you know and who you are... and then ask your flood of questions about that, and then answer yourself. That would be far more interesting and informative than your excessive analysis and questioning of other people.

But I obviously already have the answers to the questions I would ask. I do not know what others would ask. But I might try it for your interest and information.

If you do not want to answer any questions I pose, then that is fine. I totally understand why you do not.

Just once I would love to be really questioned and challenged by a human being.

To Me there is NO excessive amount of questioning. Questioning Everything led to what I have already discovered. Questioning more can only lead to more discoveries.

Could the own projections you propose here also being mirrored?

Can you show Me one question I asked that you supposedly already answered?

[ken]

I would like to see you take one of your posts where you've made all sorts of claims about what you know and who you are... and then ask your flood of questions about that, and then answer yourself. That would be far more interesting and informative than your excessive analysis and questioning of other people.

To make this more interesting and informative for you would you like to show the exact claims of what I know and who I am, then I will try to question and answer that?

By the way if and when you re and re-read what I have actually written I think you will find there is hardly any if any projection on my part. Asking simple straight-forward questions for clarity is NOT projecting, in my view. However, I do see how showing others how you try to superimpose your experience as an ultimate truth onto all of us could be seen as projecting.

[Lacewing]

would you like to show the exact claims...

No, I'm done wading through your stuff.

Asking simple straight-forward questions for clarity is NOT projecting, in my view.

The questions you ask show how skewed your view is of another person. Your questions show what you already suspect and assume. Your questions show the differences you perceive between yourself and another. All of that has to be dealt with when responding to you. Your questions are not "simple and straight-forward" as you claim them to be -- they are thick with all of this stuff from your own head and mis-understanding. You insist that people not assume what YOU can or cannot know or do, and yet your presumptive and ill-conceived questions are demonstrating your own assumptions that you place on other people. Simply using the form of a question does not conceal the skewed analysis in the forming/asking of that question.

[ken]

would you like to show the exact claims...

No, I'm done wading through your stuff.

So you actually have not even understood what I have written.

The claims I make are that obvious there is no need to wade through anything.

You wrote, "What I challenge is when someone claims that their experience reflects a template or truth of ultimate reality for all." Obviously this is not true regarding Me. You have yet to challenge Me. Also, what is just as obvious is you do not like to be challenged yourself regarding your claims.

If God is all there is as you claim God is, then you are also claiming that part of you that allows you to abuse children and be in denial of this fact is also God.

Asking simple straight-forward questions for clarity is NOT projecting, in my view.

The questions you ask show how skewed your view is of another person. Your questions show what you already suspect and assume. Your questions show the differences you perceive between yourself and another. All of that has to be dealt with when responding to you. Your questions are not "simple and straight-forward" as you claim them to be -- they are thick with all of this stuff from your own head and mis-understanding. You insist that people not assume what YOU can or cannot know or do, and yet your presumptive and ill-conceived questions are demonstrating your own assumptions that you place on other people. Simply using the form of a question does not conceal the skewed analysis in the forming/asking of that question.

This just proves how WRONG you are about Me.

I have NOT assumed anything, thus the very simple and open-ended questions I ask. I seek clarity from others with their apparently very confusing claims.

If you are presuming I am assuming anything, then that is more of a mirrored projection back of you.

[Greta]

If you define God and Universe differently than Me ...

That's the reason, Ken.

If a minuscule part of the Universe has awoken, then as I was explaining earlier the Universe has then already evolved or come into Consciousness. The Universe will, also, keep evolving until full Consciousness is reached.

Fair enough, if "full consciousness" means "as far as life (or post life) manages to develop" . Whatever, I expect that future beings will exponentially outstrip our level of conscious awareness, at least collectively. Based on rates of evolution observed so far, failing exceptional catastrophe, whatever might evolve from humanity in a billion years could conceivably be as different from humans as humans are different to bacteria.

The "far future" because it will take many billions of years for life (or "post-life") to evolve to the point where they can spread intelligence around a largely insensate and unthinking cosmos.

How confident are you in your answer of many billions of years? How can you KNOW this now, before it actually happens? Do you have some kind of ability to see and know what will happen in the future?

Galaxies not affected by cosmic gravity wells like The Great Attractor will each effectively become its own little universe, increasingly isolated from its peers as the space between them expands. So I can't speak much about life in the universe, but I can at least say with a fair bit of confidence that in many billions of years intelligent life will have spread its tendrils far further through their parent galaxies than they have achieved at this time. Perhaps one day the connections could be as densely interconnected as nervous systems?

The problem of timely interstellar travel remains unsolvable at this stage.

For some of us, obviously.

But, by the way, I do not see any problem here whatsoever.

The future of humanity and the entire story of the Earth is at stake. Our Sun is getting old and its early death throes will sterilise the Earth's surface in most likely less than a billion years. Meanwhile travel to even the nearest other planetary systems would take thousands of years with current technology. If nothing is saved then all evidence of our existence will be obliterated when the Sun expands into a red giant in 5-7 billion years' time, aside from deep space probes like Voyager.

[Lacewing]

.
See/think however you want to, Ken.

If God is all there is as you claim God is, then you are also claiming that part of you that allows you to abuse children and be in denial of this fact is also God.

Yes. For me, all means ALL, as I've repeatedly said.

[ken]

If you define God and Universe differently than Me ...

That's the reason, Ken.

That is the reason for what exactly?

You want to define God and Universe the exact same, right?

I do not see any two words having the exact same definition. But you can see anything how you want to see them.

If a minuscule part of the Universe has awoken, then as I was explaining earlier the Universe has then already evolved or come into Consciousness. The Universe will, also, keep evolving until full Consciousness is reached.

Fair enough, if "full consciousness" means "as far as life (or post life) manages to develop" .

To Me, full consciousness means when ALL intelligent beings have reached and come into Consciousness.

Whatever, I expect that future beings will exponentially outstrip our level of conscious awareness, at least collectively.

Conscious awareness at its highest level is Consciousness, It Self. Consciousness is knowing Who 'I' am, exactly. If and when an intelligent being is able to answer all meaningful questions correctly and accurately and knows Who 'I' am, then conscious awareness can not be out stripped. I have reached this level. But you are right about the current level of conscious awareness of intelligent beings collectively being exponentially outstripped. This will happen exponentially when the one who is Consciousness already learns how to better express how all the other intelligent beings can also learn and discover Consciousness, by and for themselves. When ALL intelligent beings have reached Consciousness (or aware of the Self), then full Consciousness is reached. The more human beings reach Consciousness and are able to share to others how they also can obtain this, then this will grow exponentially at a great rate. This will spread like wild fire, as it has been predicted to already.

Based on rates of evolution observed so far, failing exceptional catastrophe, whatever might evolve from humanity in a billion years could conceivably be as different from humans as humans are different to bacteria.

This evolving from humans into something different could also happen in hundreds or decades of years or less. For example when the intelligent species of human beings realize that the real and true Self, which is what they are, is God, and they evolve into being God (or God like,) then that could be conceived as being as different humans are from bacteria. This has happened for one already, and when others start to transpire also, then this whole transformation for ALL collectively could conceivable and will probably only take a few years or so.

For some of us, obviously.

But, by the way, I do not see any problem here whatsoever.

The future of humanity and the entire story of the Earth is at stake. Our Sun is getting old and its early death throes will sterilise the Earth's surface in most likely less than a billion years. Meanwhile travel to even the nearest other planetary systems would take thousands of years with current technology. If nothing is saved then all evidence of our existence will be obliterated when the Sun expands into a red giant in 5-7 billion years' time, aside from deep space probes like Voyager.

I am not sure why you are writing this.

A problem is just a question posed for solution. Otherwise it is just a statement.

You wrote the problem remains unsolvable at this stage. I just wrote I do not see any problem here whatsoever. Until I can see the question to be solved is posed, then the problem, by definition, will always remain unsolvable.

[ken]

.
See/think however you want to, Ken.

If God is all there is as you claim God is, then you are also claiming that part of you that allows you to abuse children and be in denial of this fact is also God.

Yes. For me, all means ALL, as I've repeatedly said.

If that theory of God suits you well, you are happy with that view, you are not open to changing that view, nor to being challenged about that theory, then there is not much else I can do but show others how they can gain a much truer and better view of things.

The reason I will do this is so that children can stop being abused, harmed, and damaged. I seek the peace and happiness of Every thing, not just some things.

[Greta]

If you define God and Universe differently than Me ...

That's the reason, Ken.

That is the reason for what exactly?

You want to define God and Universe the exact same, right?

I do not see any two words having the exact same definition. But you can see anything how you want to see them.

As stated, the universe obviously exists but I doubt that God does, certainly not the God of ancient religions anyway.

To Me, full consciousness means when ALL intelligent beings have reached and come into Consciousness.

All intelligent beings have already "come into consciousness", hence the intelligence.

Whatever, I expect that future beings will exponentially outstrip our level of conscious awareness, at least collectively.

Conscious awareness at its highest level is Consciousness, It Self. Consciousness is knowing Who 'I' am, exactly. If and when an intelligent being is able to answer all meaningful questions correctly and accurately and knows Who 'I' am, then conscious awareness can not be out stripped. I have reached this level.

Kenneth, alas, the level you have reached, as with the rest of us, is Sweet Fanny Adams

We humans are still hopelessly basic. Evidence? Exhibit A: Consider the public conversation prior to recently electing a person to wield more power than any other on the planet. Consider the candidates for that position and the things they said in the campaign, and the things they were quoted as saying in the past. This is the highest post humanity has to offer.

So I see much room for improvement, refinement and advancement.

[surreptitious57]

The future of humanity and the entire story of the Earth is at stake. Our Sun is getting old and its early death throes will sterilise the Earths
surface in most likely less than a billion years. Meanwhile travel to even the nearest other planetary systems would take thousands of years
with current technology. If nothing is saved then all evidence of our existence will be obliterated when the Sun expands into a red giant in
5-7 billion years time aside from deep space probes like Voyager

I simply accept that this is the probable fate of humanity and so do not worry about it. Even if we do colonise an exo planet our extinction is still inevitable. But after death energy is simply transferred into another state of matter. I do not mean this in a spiritual sense but in a scientific one Our physical bodies become either bone or ash. I refuse to think in emotional terms about the extinction of homo sapiens. As both an atheist and nihilist I do not think there is any meaning to life or that we have a divine right to exist forever. As all we are doing is just simply passing through

[Greta]

The future of humanity and the entire story of the Earth is at stake. Our Sun is getting old and its early death throes will sterilise the Earth's surface in most likely less than a billion years. Meanwhile travel to even the nearest other planetary systems would take thousands of years with current technology. If nothing is saved then all evidence of our existence will be obliterated when the Sun expands into a red giant in 5-7 billion years time aside from deep space probes like Voyager

I simply accept that this is the probable fate of humanity and so do not worry about it. Even if we do colonise an exo planet our extinction is still inevitable. But after death energy is simply transferred into another state of matter. I do not mean this in a spiritual sense but in a scientific one Our physical bodies become either bone or ash. I refuse to think in emotional terms about the extinction of homo sapiens. As both an atheist and nihilist I do not think there is any meaning to life or that we have a divine right to exist forever. As all we are doing is just simply passing through

As I said, "the story of the Earth", not just of humanity - from its formation in the proto-planetary cloud to today. Humans won't survive the Sun's death, but I am personally hoping our successors can find a way, to bear witness to the nature that the Earth has produced, preserving the legacy far into the future - and to continue that story. I personally think the story of evolution on Earth is remarkable and well worthy of preservation, and furthering if possible. Yet the only way any part of the Earth is going to persist in the far future is 1) flukey panspermia or 2) humanity's successors (cyborgs? AI?) will continue the Earth's evolutionary story.

I can understand why others could not care a less if the Earth and its story eventually dies out completely without "reproducing" and is simply obliterated. That's very practical and I'm sure their spouses would be pleased with their focus on "the important things". However, I and many other dreamers dearly hope that the Earth's story continues for as long as possible, even surviving stellar demise, with its entities continuing to evolve and develop into something capable of finally conquering the twin scourges of suffering and unsustainability.