Extinction as Policy: Nah.
A nervous system-informed spiritual drag on the attack on the ESA
Dear Governor Burgum and Director Lutnick,
I'm writing not just as a citizen. BUT as someone whose nervous system is DONE with polite collapse.
I've been a licensed bodyworker since 2018. This year, I started something called Erth Bodi Mystery School—a baby project rooted in ancient technology. We teach what the textbooks won't: that the climate crisis is a spiritual crisis. That yoga, grief, nervous system repair, and Gurdjieffian philosophy are tools for surviving late-stage capitalism without spiritually flatlining.
Because let's be so fucking for real right now:
What you're proposing IS bad policy. It's a full-blown muladhara violation too.
(Muladhara. It's the root chakra.
You probably don't know what that is, but it's cool. I'll explain: It governs survival, safety, and connection to land. So when you strip away habitat protections?
You're not just doing paperwork.
You're severing the energetic spine of the Earth.)
To rescind the definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act is a joke.
It severs a sacred thread.
Are you actually saying it's fine to destroy the home of an endangered species… as long as you didn't technically shoot it?
That's what I call legal gaslighting with extinction-level consequences.
And for what?
To make habitat destruction easier for developers who dgaf about rivers, owls, or Treaty rights?
Or is it just a kink for control?
Harm is more than a bullet or a bulldozer.
It's the slow rot of disconnection.
It's forgetting that salmon ARE kin.
That land is an overgiving relative who will offer everything, including her own survival if we ask.
Our nervous systems are fried because, deep down, we know the Earth is being ripped apart.
And we've been trained to numb it.
To call it "just politics."
But it's not JUST politics.
It's a spiritual dismembering of our ability to respond to life with reverence.
The ESA—when upheld—reminds us we're still capable of choosing protection over profit.
Of seeing clearly, like Gurdjieff teaches, even in a world that would rather stay asleep.
Changing the definition of "harm" is ecological bankruptcy.
AND it's spiritually reckless.
We need policies that protect species.
And we need policies that help us remember what the fuck actually matters.
Please re-the-fucking-consider.
Keep the definition of harm rooted in REALity.
Because without that root, we all lose the plot.
For real,
Thank you (begrudgingly but sincerely),