You want to label me? Label this.

BigEyeTenor
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:23 am

You want to label me? Label this.

Post by BigEyeTenor » Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:07 pm

THERE ISN’T A CHANCE in hell that something like the original Wilderness Act could be passed today. Environmentalists today are too much on the defensive. Sure, there have been green platforms and policy papers, but nothing I’ve read matches the urgency of this moment. So I decided to draft a declaration. It goes like this:

We, the citizens of the United States of America, hold these truths to be self-evident: that a rapid decline in living conditions is taking place all around us; that compromise is no longer an adequate way forward (and perhaps never was); that more drastic measures must be taken immediately in order to preserve a livable planet. From these beliefs springs the following list of demands:

We demand that the United States Constitution be rewritten to explicitly prohibit the privatization of profits and the externalization of costs by the wealthy, and to immediately grant both human and nonhuman communities full legal and moral rights. Corporations should no longer be considered persons under the law. Limited liability corporations must be immediately stripped of their limited liability protection. Those whose economic activities cause great harm — including great harm to the real, physical world — should be punished. Environmental Crimes Tribunals must be immediately put in place to try those who have significantly harmed the real, physical world. These tribunals should have the force of law and should be expected to impose punishment commensurate with the harm caused to the public and to the planet.

We demand the immediate, explicit, and legally binding recognition that perpetual growth is incompatible with life on a finite planet. Economic growth must stop, and economies must begin to contract. We demand acknowledgment that if we don’t begin this contraction voluntarily, it will take place against our will, and will cause untold misery.

We demand that overconsumption and overpopulation be addressed through bold and serious measures, but not by approaches that are racist, colonialist, or misogynist. Right now, more than 50 percent of the children who are born into this world are unwanted. We demand that all children be wanted. The single most effective strategy for making certain that all children are wanted is the liberation of women. Therefore we demand that women be given absolute economic, sexual, and reproductive freedom, and that all forms of reproductive control become freely available to all.

There is consensus among the scientific community that in order to prevent catastrophic climate change beyond what the industrial economy has already set in motion, net carbon emissions must be reduced by 80 percent as soon as possible. Because we wish to continue to live on a habitable planet, we demand a carbon reduction of 20 percent of current emissions per year over the next four years.

Dwayne Andreas, former CEO of Archer Daniels Midland, has said, “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians.” He’s right. Capitalism is based almost entirely on subsidies. For example, commercial fishing fleets worldwide receive more in subsidies than the entire value of their catch. Timber corporations, oil corporations, banks — all would collapse immediately without massive government subsidies and bailouts. Therefore, we demand that the United States government stop subsidizing environmentally and socially destructive activities, and shift those same subsidies into activities that restore biotic communities and that promote local self-sufficiency and vibrant local economies.

We demand an immediate and permanent halt to all extractive and destructive activities: fracking, mountaintop removal, tar sands production, nuclear power, and offshore drilling chief among them. The list of activities to be halted must also include the manufacture of photovoltaic panels, windmills, hybrid cars, and so on. We must find nondestructive ways of becoming a sustainable society.

We demand an immediate end to monocrop agriculture, one of the most destructive activities humans have ever perpetrated. All remaining native forests must be immediately and completely protected. We demand an end to clearcutting, “leave tree,” “seed tree,” “shelter tree,” and all other “even-aged management” techniques, no matter what they are called, and no matter what rationales are put forward by the timber industry and the government to justify them. Likewise, we demand that all remaining prairies and wetlands be permanently protected.

Further, we demand that all damaged lands be restored, from the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters. Because soil is the basis of terrestrial life, no activities should be allowed that destroy topsoil. All properties over sixty acres must have soil surveys performed every ten years, and if they have suffered any decrease in health or depth of topsoil, the lands shall be confiscated and ownership transferred to those who will build up soil.

We demand that no activities that draw down aquifers be allowed, and that all polluted or compromised rivers and wetlands be restored. There are more than 2 million dams in the United States, more than 60,000 dams over thirteen feet tall and more than 70,000 dams over six and a half feet tall. If we removed one of these 70,000 dams each day, it would take 200 years to get rid of them all. Salmon don’t have that much time. Sturgeon don’t have that much time. Therefore, we demand that no more dams be built, and we demand the removal of five dams per day over the next forty years, beginning one year from today.

We demand that the United States make an annual survey of all endangered species to ascertain if they are increasing in number and range, and if they are not, we demand that steps be taken to make sure that they do. The U.S. government must be charged with the task of doing whatever is necessary to make sure that there are more migratory songbirds every year than the year before, that there are more native fish every year than the year before, more native reptiles and amphibians.

The United States must immediately withdraw from NAFTA, DR-CAFTA, and other so-called free trade agreements, because these agreements cause immeasurable and irreparable harm to working people, local economies. Likewise, we demand that the United States remove all support for the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, because these organizations promote and support vast infrastructure projects such as highways, dams, thermal power projects, and mines that disrupt or destroy entire biomes and dispossess and immiserate hundreds of thousands of people (in India alone, 50 million people have been displaced by large “development” projects).

From this day forward, the only conditions under which the United States of America should go to war is by a direct vote of more than 50 percent of U.S. citizens. Furthermore, we demand immediate closure of all U.S. military bases on foreign soil. All U.S. military personnel should be brought home within two years. The U.S. military budget must be reduced by 20 percent per year, until it reaches 20 percent of its current size. This will provide the “peace dividend” politicians promised us back when the Soviet Union collapsed, will balance the U.S. budget, and will more than pay for all necessary domestic programs, starting with biome repair and including food, shelter, and medical care for all.

In addition to the aforementioned, we demand that the U.S. government itself undergo a significant transformation in recognition of the fact that it can only be of, by, and for the people if it is concurrently of, by, and for the earth. And no, the fact that the animals and plants and natural communities don’t speak English is not a valid excuse for failing to provide for their well-being.

Once these demands have been met, we will come up with more, and then more, until we are living in a sane, just, and sustainable culture. We believe that such a culture is our birthright, both as human beings with inalienable rights and as animals who love our home. We have not forgotten that the Declaration of Independence states that when a government becomes destructive of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Derrick Jensen

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by jakell » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:52 pm

Makes me wonder why eco-fascism hasn't developed into a 'thing' yet, perhaps the bread and circuses that (still) flow from industrial civilisation are keeping people in their comfort zone, helping them overlook those uncomfortable hard facts about future sustainability. The internet seems to be plugging the hole that would have been left by declining MSM, so folks are not noticing the dearth of distracting media just yet.

John Micheal Greer seemed to provide an alternative to Jenson's feverish output (which seems to lead solidly to what was mentioned in my opening remark here) although his outlook was no less grim, he just provided some extra strategies for dealing with the grimness. This reminds me that I should try to keep up with his new blog, I've sort of lost the habit since The Archdruid Report finished.

I'm reminded of his essay 'The God with Three Heads',** which was part of his series dealing with our present replacements for old-time religion.. the first head of which was an insistence on moral progress (the other two dealt with 'progress' too). I think we see this in the SJW phenomenon, or rather we see the distress caused by the inevitable stagnation of this 'progress' due to more and more absurd and intricate demands (I notice that Jenson is keen on demands too).
Perhaps this present preoccupation, which still deals with hope, is what is keeping ideas of ecodoom at bay, that is probably the next phase, when denial and bargaining turns to back to anger. (the Kubler-Ross sequence can be pretty repetitive before it reaches its conclusion).

** Archived in Data Dump here

dusty
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:14 pm

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by dusty » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:35 pm

Image

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by C_D » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:07 pm

Edited to remove rant.

Heartfelt and stirring speech, Derrick. I like it.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by jakell » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:05 am

Jenson's piece can result in nothing but 'rants' though, or rather it is a rant in itself fluffed up into a series of demands, plus some other ingredients, that cannot be met (in toto), he even gives a nod towards this at the end with..
Once these demands have been met, we will come up with more, and then more..... until we are living in a sane, just, and sustainable culture
..culminating with a final requirement that sounds great, but is now pulling in culture and social justice in case someone finds the magic dust capable of satisfying all the former ones.
I suspect that his "sane, just and sustainable culture" is a global one and not based upon any previous ones who have seen fit to draw boundaries around anything good they have created in order to protect it, therefore it seems we have the seeds of Left Wing eco-fascism rather than something from the Right, something he seems to have considered:
We demand that overconsumption and overpopulation be addressed through bold and serious measures, but not by approaches that are racist, colonialist, or misogynist. Right now, more than 50 percent of the children who are born into this world are unwanted. We demand that all children be wanted. The single most effective strategy for making certain that all children are wanted is the liberation of women. Therefore we demand that women be given absolute economic, sexual, and reproductive freedom, and that all forms of reproductive control become freely available to all.
Strange how he mentions the utterly central issue of overpopulation, but then glides straight past it, seemingly with the assumption that "the liberation of Women" will somehow solve that. Perhaps his upcoming global culture will result in this, although he will have to find a way to explain why it contains quite a lot of Western Chauvanism.


Perhaps I'm not being fair on Derrick though, after all this article was written back in 2012, hence the lack of mentions of microagressions, trangender rights** and Islamaphobia (etc etc). At present I'm looking at some more recent stuff, but so far it's not looking so good.

** There's a hint of those, not yet formulated, "more and more demands" relating to a 'just' culture.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by C_D » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:35 am

I'm wondering if we haven't all become so individualised that agreement is statistically impossible. Derricks basic premise is one I would agree with, regardless of how improbable it's materialisation as an outcome is. I didn't realsie he'd done some iffy stuff since. Thanks jakell.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by jakell » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:17 pm

C_D wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:35 am
I'm wondering if we haven't all become so individualised that agreement is statistically impossible. Derricks basic premise is one I would agree with, regardless of how improbable it's materialisation as an outcome is. I didn't realsie he'd done some iffy stuff since. Thanks jakell.
That's the core of Utopian ideas though, they are easy to agree with precisely because they are improbable, as one starts to consider practical measures then the ugliness starts to creep in. At the time of this article, Jensen was about 50 (2 years older than JMG), and had been considering these things for years, so I find it hard to give him a pass for being some idealistic dreamer, he should be mature enough to grasp the nettle and talk of practicalities.

I have no idea why he is including (human) social justice issues so centrally in his nature-based ideology, perhaps that is his base and he feels he needs to pander to them This has become an even more fraught issue nowadays with many feeling the need to virtue signal whilst simultaneously muting themselves on other issues, it's very powerful.
I reckon there is a tension there (between 'man' and nature basically), and this produces a strong cognitive dissonance in his ideas, so his 'basic premise' is contradicted. I think this sort of tension produces the same sort of madness we see in today's SJW's, along with someone getting in the way of that Utopia - they have the excuse of youth though.

Haven't looked much into his present stuff yet, if he takes the 'redpill' route then his formulations will start to make more sense, I reckon he has considered this though, indicated in his "bold and serious measures.." statement, and feels conflicted.

dusty
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:14 pm

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by dusty » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:05 pm

on a lunch break... so i'll quickly focus on two points:
From this day forward, the only conditions under which the United States of America should go to war is by a direct vote of more than 50 percent of U.S. citizens.
If this were the case there'd be even more war than we have already. Nuke Mecca etc. A recent example from Gallup: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... SKCN1BQ1LP
Furthermore, we demand immediate closure of all U.S. military bases on foreign soil. All U.S. military personnel should be brought home within two years
If America were to retreat from the world stage militarily, the vacuum would be filled by its rivals, solving nothing. Essentially, he wants the destruction of the entity we call America. Yet, only after competing powers and cultures are completely subsumed under the US military-corporate megalith can war be minimized and progressive global-scale planning prioritized. Unless he believes that US imperialism/corporatism is uniquely destructive, and the alternative globalisms more promising

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by jakell » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:48 pm

"You'll always find me.... out to lunch.... We're so pretty, oh so pretty (etc)"

Jensen's piece is a tapestry of absurdities.. that's sort of the point though, he reinforces the Utopian aspect by piling up unrealistic things. This, like in a religion, doesn't actually diminish the impact but builds up the emotional side of things.

Ironically, John Michael Greer, although a druid and a commentator about other religions, doesn't play on this this religiosity**(let's face it, we are talking of apocalyptic matters here, so we're in religion's backyard), but stays as rooted in the material world as possible, and in many varied writings on this subject matter has also resisted tying it in with social justice matters.

**There are exceptions, but there he is direct about it.

ETA: I'm intrigued by the phrase alternative globalisms, there is the 'Western Chauvinistic' one I mentioned above, but I suppose Marxism and even Islam could be considered competitors).

semper occultus
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by semper occultus » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:29 pm

shout out for the ex activist & writer - and seemingly sensible sane person Paul Kingsnorth

here's a review of his latest book which collects alot of his essays

http://www.theecologist.org/reviews/298 ... north.html

Image

In their joint interview on BBC Radio 4 (broadcast on May 1st, 2017) both Paul Kingsnorth and Wendell Berry advocated finding a part of the natural world to love and be part of. We cannot ‘save the world', as Kingsnorth thought he was doing in his early days of activism. But we can each find a little piece of it to love and protect.

which is what John Lewis-Stempel did....

Image


An unusual short book from a farmer-writer with a heart and a quiet rage that burns through him. Lewis-Stempel farms ‘in the hills of the far distance under the black wall of Wales, where nothing but grass and sheep grow’, but he wanted also to find an arable field, which he would turn into a traditional wheatfield.

No herbicides, no pesticides for, as he points out, if the chemicals dousing the land are so fantastically safe, why do crop-sprayers have sealed cabs? He finds a grotty, treeless field in south Herefordshire and slowly nurses it back to life.

Simply erecting a bird-table attracts more species than you’d normally find in the 25 acres of arable farmland surrounding his field. Soon, a pair of hares start to live there, with ‘the chiselled heads of horses, the legs of lurchers and the eyes of lions’.

This rather beautiful book is very much in the mould of the new nature writing, but it’s also wondrously inspiring. As Lewis-Stempel writes: ‘One field, just one field made a difference. If we had a thousand fields . . .’

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by jakell » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:20 am

I'm not sure about the extent to which the above transformation of an arable field into a 'traditional wheatfield' is a hobby/experiment, but if it is meant to demonstrate that such a thing is a viable way of producing food, simply mathematically scaling it up (x1000) isn't really an option.. at some point some diversity has to be introduced, ie a mixed farm.

There is one heartwarming account from the post-war period concerning this very thing though, and I suspect there were less ecological fantasies to tap into (or be distracted by) back then. Here's the first chapter:
Fertility Farming by Newman Turner

Chapter 1: Getting Goosegreen back to Life


When I came to Goosegreen Farm the first calf born was dead. Disease was already master of the farm. Was I to be man enough to face such a master and turn his efforts to my own advantage? I thought I was, but disease drained the resources of the farm for nearly five years, ruining nearly two herds of cattle in the process, before I reached a position of stability in the health and production of the farm.

In February 1941, with an agricultural training at university, and the experience gained from working in agriculture all my life, I took on the management of the farm. (Subsequently I rented it, then I bought it.) My training had been orthodox, and although my ideas had been modified by contact with, and experience of, the value of natural methods of farming and livestock management, policy was controlled by the owners of the farm, so the methods of the man who had farmed the place for the twenty-five years previous to 1941 were more or less continued.

The cattle had lived and produced milk on the same pastures for generations. The hay that the mowing pastures produced could better have served the purpose of wire, for all its nutritional value. Arable crops were heavy enough, as crops grown with ample artificial manures at first are, but a variety of crop diseases were evident and showing signs of increase. The cattle were good milkers as commercial herds go, as well they should have been, for their main article of diet was purchased imported concentrated high-protein feeding stuffs, upon which the cows were forced to the limit of their capacity to produce milk and calves. The more milk the cows gave, the less natural bulky food they were allowed to eat, and what home-grown food they had was raised with artificial manures.

Governed by the instructions of the committee representing the owners, I farmed on orthodox lines. We purchased all the artificials that could be got, and by placing orders with several firms got rather more than our share, much to my subsequent regret. We tried to be good farmers according to orthodox standards, and our reward was a trading loss of £2,000 for two years during the piping days of war, abortion in 75 per cent of our cows, 50 per cent of our total stock reactors to the tuberculin test and a large acreage of corn ruined with smut and take-all diseases, with chocolate spot making bean growing impossible.

When at the beginning of 1943 I had the opportunity to take the farm over on my own, I knew that half the cattle were barren and that I had a long history of disease to tackle. But I had faith in nature. The fact that not all the cattle had succumbed to contagious abortion and tuberculosis led me to believe that disease was not primarily caused by bacteria, but that it was the result of deficiency or excess of wrong feeding and wrong management, with bacteria only a secondary factor. Nature provides the means of combating all the disease that any living thing is likely to encounter, and I have discovered that bacteria are the main means of combating disease and not the cause of it as we had formerly believed.

So I decided to get my farm and its livestock back to nature. I would manure the fields as nature intended; I would stop exhausting the fertility of my fields and give them the recuperative benefit of variety. My cows would no longer have to act as machines, with compound cakes going in at one end and milk and calves coming out at the other. I would return them as nearly as possible to their natural lives. The more natural parts of their diet -- leys, green fodder, other bulky foods and herbs -- would be assured and adequate quantities insisted upon before any concentrates were fed. All the food the cows and other livestock received would be home grown, on land filled with farmyard manure, compost and green crop manure.

Artificial fertilizers, which had left my soil solid and impossible to live in, for almost any form of soil life, were dispensed with entirely. Not only because I was at last convinced of the disaster they had brought upon me, but because I could no longer afford to buy them.

There was not enough ordinary muck to go round. But with the rapid ploughing up programme that the poor grass made necessary, and the consequent increase of arable acreage, straw was accumulating. Instead of tying up the cows in the winter they were given freedom and turned loose in yards, being milked in a milking parlour. Quickly the straw stacks diminished, not in smoke as so often happens on so-called progressive farms these days, but, by way of the cattle yards, they grew into tons and tons of compost which went to produce whole-wheat to grind into flour for bread, whole oats and beans to be ground for cattle food, and fresh greenstuff for all living things on the farm -- soil, cattle and men.

This kind of farming restored life to a dying farm. Everything on the farm, from the soil teeming with life and fertility, to the cows all pregnant or in full milk, and to the farmer and his family full of energy and good health, acclaim the rightness of this policy.

My neighbours have, of course, questioned the financial wisdom of such a system of farming. They said that labour for composting would be higher than the cost of buying and spreading artificial fertilizers, and yields could not possibly compare. Costs certainly did appear to increase, for it seemed that we spent more time about the muck heap, and spreading the compost, than ever we did about handling artificial manures. But when it came to be worked out, the extra cost was nothing; for the men were engaged on the muck during wet weather, and at times when there was no other productive work for them to do. Previously we must have wasted a good deal of time on worthless jobs, when now all our spare time was building up fertility at no extra cost. I shall show in this book how it is possible for the average medium-sized farm to be self-supporting in fertility, and consequently free of disease, with less capital outlay, a reduction in labour costs, and an immense saving in the cost of manures and veterinary and medicine bills.

But though there was a reduction in costs, there was a marked increase in yields. My threshing contractor tells me that my yields are not equalled in the district. Yet all my neighbours boast that they use all the artificial fertilizers they can lay hands on.

But it is not in increased yields, or in costs, that I measure the success of this organic fertility farming, though these things are important in times of economic stress. It is the health of all living things on the farm that proclaims nature's answer to our problems. From a herd riddled with abortion and tuberculosis, in which eight years ago few calves were born to full time, and those few that reached due date were dead, I can now walk around sheds full of healthy calves, and cows formerly sterile, now heavy in calf or in milk. I have advertised in the farming press for sterile cows and cows suffering from mastitis and have bought many pedigree animals, declared useless by vets, given them a naturally grown diet, and a period of fasting, herbal and dietary treatment which I have discovered to be effective in restoring natural functions, and they have subsequently borne calves and come to full and profitable production or had their udders restored to perfect health. Cows that have been sterile for two and three years have given birth to healthy calves. On the orthodox farm there is no hope for these cases, and the animals are slaughtered as 'barreners'. But nature intended the cow to continue breeding into old age, and if treated as nature intended there is every chance that her breeding capacity can be restored. I considered my pedigree Jersey cattle worth keeping and bringing back to production, and if I could buy similar animals with which others had failed, it was also doing good to myself as well as the condemned cows; and it has paid me both financially and in moral satisfaction. I have cows aged fourteen to twenty years which, after being sterile for years, have given birth to strong calves and milked well afterwards.

In the process of all this work I have experimented with the use of herbs, in the treatment of animal disease, and discovered ways in which this science can be of use to the farmer in a fix with disease. I shall say something about such treatment in a part of this book, but I should stress at the outset that the main purpose of my book is to demonstrate the simplicity and effectiveness of farming by the laws of nature; and above all to show that it can be done on the poorest of farms, by the poorest of men.

Such restoration of a dead farm is an achievement worth any man's efforts, and success within the reach of any farmer who will turn back to fertility farming, and eschew the 'get-rich-quick' methods of commercialized science, which are in fact a snare.
Link

minime
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:52 pm

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by minime » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:28 am

:)

semper occultus
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by semper occultus » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:57 am

intersting - thanks

the most significant opportunity to take a look at the state of the agricultural sector is presumably Brexit - whenever that actually happens - although for some reason the Minsitry of Ag & Fish ( or any of the others for that matter ) doesn't fill one with alot of confidence

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by jakell » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:17 am

semper occultus wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:57 am
intersting - thanks
I realise that what I posted represents a 'niche' interest, it does coincide with my own though as I have been a fairly hardworking organic gardener for some time now. This is at allotment level though and not smallholding, which would be the next step up. I wonder to what extent Newman Turner's placing of working animals at the centre of things would grate against more new-agey vegetarian sensibilities, possibly this represents the point where practical organic farmers and 'dreamers' go different ways.
The most significant opportunity to take a look at the state of the agricultural sector is presumably Brexit - whenever that actually happens - although for some reason the Minsitry of Ag & Fish ( or any of the others for that matter ) doesn't fill one with alot of confidence
After being 'under' Europe for some time now I expect Ag and Fish will have to pretty much re-invent itself rather than just do a bit of tinkering. The movement from Europe to a UK focus is a move in the right direction, ie scaling down, but it's still going to be pretty big.

BigEyeTenor
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:23 am

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by BigEyeTenor » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:14 pm

Jensen is brilliant, and thinking like outlined in the OP is what we need to survive on the planet.

It's gotten that bad, that to explain how we are to fucking SURVIVE is considered "unrealistic". Shouldn't it be "unrealistic", as in "unthinkable", to continue down the current path?

Lemmings.

Jensen seems to be getting angrier recently, and who can blame him?

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by C_D » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:25 pm

It seems that absent a truly catastrophic event - such as everyone, everywhere wakes up one morning and cannot breathe properly, with anyone who has less than a 100% perfect respiratory system simply asphyxiating - that we are destined to continue as we are. We have too many addictions that make our lives comfortable- and who wants a harder life than it is already? It's the human condition Catch-22 - it's dangerous ahead but horrible behind, mixed with the gamble that it'll all be alright in the end, right?

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by jakell » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:53 pm

C_D wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:25 pm
It seems that absent a truly catastrophic event - such as everyone, everywhere wakes up one morning and cannot breathe properly, with anyone who has less than a 100% perfect respiratory system simply asphyxiating - that we are destined to continue as we are. We have too many addictions that make our lives comfortable- and who wants a harder life than it is already? It's the human condition Catch-22 - it's dangerous ahead but horrible behind, mixed with the gamble that it'll all be alright in the end, right?
People who immerse themselves in apocalyptic themes are usually Westerners who see the passing of our present comforts as the end of the World. They completely overlook the fact that many in the world don't live to our standard and therefore will not suffer much if it becomes untenable.

Personally, I reckon the Islamic world is best equipped to survive worldwide scarcity as it has retained one foot in the Stone(?) age whilst the other is planted in the modern world, another advantage it has is that it has retained a 'soft' slavery in the way it regards women, and slavery is how we got by in pre fossil fuel times. In addition I don't think there would be many objections to other varieties of slavery.. the treatment of Christians and Jews as Dhimmis is laid out in the Koran, as well as ways of dealing with other peoples.

The only truly catastrophic event would be the overwhelming release of radioactive substances which would reduce the capacity of present ecosystems (and hence us) to adapt as we have done in the past. That and asteroid collision.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by C_D » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:09 pm

jakell said:
People who immerse themselves in apocalyptic themes are usually Westerners who see the passing of our present comforts as the end of the World. They completely overlook the fact that many in the world don't live to our standard and therefore will not suffer much if it becomes untenable.
Oh, I think they will, if the air goes bad. They have the same capacity for feeling as us Westerners, you know. I know they all live in mud huts and speak a funny lingo but I'm pretty sure they all have the same nervous systems and emotional responses to disasters like seeing each other die. In fact, should we in The West poison the air (by chemical, radiological or biological means) I think they'd have a right to 'suffer' more than we would, given they had no say in the process.
Personally, I reckon the Islamic world is best equipped to survive worldwide scarcity
Nah - at the first hint of scarcity - we'd enslave them, and, if necessary, eat them.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by jakell » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:20 pm

Apart from radioactivity, which would be a deal-breaker (although it would end up falling back to Earth), I can't really see that we could make the air unbreatheable anywhere but in urbanised areas. If you're thinking of CO2, then that isn't really a poison.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: You want to label me? Label this.

Post by C_D » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:23 pm

You sidetracked me from the point I was trying to make - and that was - absent a catastrophic event that affects everyone, we are unable to make any drastic change (as a species) required. That was all.

edited to add - (as a species)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest