Interested in bringing down civilization?

[downfall]

Very interesting talk by Derrick Jensen about why civilization needs to end. I'm putting this in spray because its not directly related to climbing but definitly related to enviro/access issues. If you're not familiar with his work then this is a good intro. Jensen has been extremely eye-opening for me.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1814543.php

Edited April 17, 2006 by downfall

[G-spotter]

Well, have fun tending goats and growing potatoes. It'd better be fun because if civilization ends you will be too busy surviving to climb

[catbirdseat]

Pol Pot had many of the same ideas. What a crock of baloney.

[DirtyHarry]

If civilization ends, Dru, you can't have any of my potatoes.

[downfall]

But if the civilization which supports your climbing lifestyle comes only at the expense of the lives lower in the violence hierarchy than yourself (jensen's idea) and at the expense of the future habitability of the planet would you still be so happy to stick with the status quo?

[Dechristo]

So, bringing down civilization will decrease Man's propensity to lie?

 

Sounds like a lie to me.

[downfall]

Pol Pot had many of the same ideas. What a crock of baloney.

 

CBS, it hasn't been two hours since I posted the link so you obviously haven't listened to it (since it's two hours long). Maybe you give it a listen before talking out your ass.

[G-spotter]

But if the civilization which supports your climbing lifestyle comes only at the expense of the lives lower in the violence hierarchy than yourself (jensen's idea) and at the expense of the future habitability of the planet would you still be so happy to stick with the status quo?

 

if you are concerned about lives, think about this. much of our civilization's efforts, technology, and means of distribution are devoted to maintaining the current global population. a corollary of this is that the current global population is unsustainable using pre-industrial and pre-agricutural revolution technology. so if civilization ends, probably 95% of the current human population dies.

 

who are those people who die going to be? sure as hell not the people on top of your current "violence hierarchy". so how is ending civilization going to benefit them? they'll be the first to die.

 

on the other hand, the benefits of our current technological civilization with respect to reducing our footprint are only starting to be realized. therefore we need to intensify these efforts rather than ending them. also, the effect of Western civilization on reducing birth rates and shrinking population is well documented. so continuing this lifestyle and extending it worldwide is really the only realistic solution to reducing human populations to a desirable level.

[DirtyHarry]

who are those people who die going to be? sure as hell not the people on top of your current "violence hierarchy". so how is ending civilization going to benefit them? they'll be the first to die.

 

Good point. Especially when you think of the tribal genocide that is and was carried out in Africa.

[JayB]

I'm amazed that there's still an audience for this, but I suppose I shouldn't be, as the Prophet of Doom has been around as long as there's been civilization.

 

On the right you've got the avid readers of the "Left Behind," series who are eagerly awaiting the moment when all of the nonbelievers who have strayed from the righteous path will get their comeuppance courtesy of an angry God. One the Left you've got all of the permutations on this guy who are eagerly awaiting the moment when man's technological hubris (and insensitivity) finally get the best of him. Subsitute a pissed off Old Testament style deity for "Mother Nature" here and you've got more or less the same thing.

 

There must be some books out there that outline the common beliefs that unite these folks. Narcissism, messianic tendencies, misanthropism, broad suspicion of technology, belief in a bygone golden era/golden future, devaluation of the present, etc, etc, etc. It's not a scientific book, but I think that Eric Hoffer's "The True Believers" covers this ground pretty well.

 

What I always wonder about these folks is - do they think they'd be spared in the event that their prophecies came true? Seems like the "Rapture" crew is pretty convinced that they'd be chilling out with Jesus, catching all of the despair and mayhem on the flatscreen in the giant suburb in the sky, but what about the enviro-doom folks? You've also gotta wonder if they are forsaking modern medical treatment in favor of herbal teas and chanting, and I wonder if their kids had diabetes or cancer or whatever if they'd be willing to walk the talk and watch them endure the same kind of agonizing death that they are wishing on the rest of the population?

[JayB]

But if the civilization which supports your climbing lifestyle comes only at the expense of the lives lower in the violence hierarchy than yourself (jensen's idea) and at the expense of the future habitability of the planet would you still be so happy to stick with the status quo?

 

if you are concerned about lives, think about this. much of our civilization's efforts, technology, and means of distribution are devoted to maintaining the current global population. a corollary of this is that the current global population is unsustainable using pre-industrial and pre-agricutural revolution technology. so if civilization ends, probably 95% of the current human population dies.

 

who are those people who die going to be? sure as hell not the people on top of your current "violence hierarchy". so how is ending civilization going to benefit them? they'll be the first to die.

 

on the other hand, the benefits of our current technological civilization with respect to reducing our footprint are only starting to be realized. therefore we need to intensify these efforts rather than ending them. also, the effect of Western civilization on reducing birth rates and shrinking population is well documented. so continuing this lifestyle and extending it worldwide is really the only realistic solution to reducing human populations to a desirable level.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[downfall]

Part of the perspective Jensen is bringing to the table is that human population isn't the only population factor which is important or that it's the most important. The salmon populations, the forest populations, all the wild populations are just as important and humans ignoring this fact is what results in a culture which destorys these populations at the expense of all other natural populations. Whether civilization comes down now (with the beneift of keeping the natural populations we have left) or in the future because humans will ultimately destory the very eco-systems which we need (even in spite of technological advancements) to survive. Yes the human population would be drastically lower either way.

 

So are you arguing that techniclogical solutions are the only answer to the fact that technicological soluions causes us to be in this situation in the first place?

[catbirdseat]

Sounds like Malthus with a new twist.

[downfall]

You've also gotta wonder if they are forsaking modern medical treatment in favor of herbal teas and chanting, and I wonder if their kids had diabetes or cancer or whatever if they'd be willing to walk the talk and watch them endure the same kind of agonizing death that they are wishing on the rest of the population?

 

What you really have to wonder is how someone who has a loved one who is affected by these diseases isn't able to question the causes of them, techological civilization.

 

I don't have any data on this but it seems the more technocological/advanced/whatever we get the higher the rates of these diseases we have.

[Dechristo]

It's marvelous that, no matter your socio-political-economic bent, everyone can find a channel for their angst/anger of injustice to suit them.

[JayB]

Part of the perspective Jensen is bringing to the table is that human population isn't the only population factor which is important or that it's the most important. The salmon populations, the forest populations, all the wild populations are just as important and humans ignoring this fact is what results in a culture which destorys these populations at the expense of all other natural populations. Whether civilization comes down now (with the beneift of keeping the natural populations we have left) or in the future because humans will ultimately destory the very eco-systems which we need (even in spite of technological advancements) to survive. Yes the human population would be drastically lower either way.

 

So are you arguing that techniclogical solutions are the only answer to the fact that technicological soluions causes us to be in this situation in the first place?

 

There's a reason why the environmental movement started in the most prosperous, technologically advanced societies. The first is that miserable, starving people generally don't give a shit about the environment. The second is that without advanced science/technology no one would even have the means to understand the nature of environmental problems, much less propose solutions.

[G-spotter]

If civilization collapsed today it would not be a good thing for the rest of the planet. It would be a bad thing.

 

People don't think about conservation when they're concerned about immediate survival. The increased demand for bushmeat resulting from massive starvation would surely doom all the endangered species you are now professing to be worried about.

 

It sounds to me like you are really saying "The world would be a better place if we killed off all the rich people, and all the poor people, and just me and my privileged hippie friends survived on our commune". Sorry but that's a fantasy I can't buy into.

[JayB]

You've also gotta wonder if they are forsaking modern medical treatment in favor of herbal teas and chanting, and I wonder if their kids had diabetes or cancer or whatever if they'd be willing to walk the talk and watch them endure the same kind of agonizing death that they are wishing on the rest of the population?

 

What you really have to wonder is how someone who has a loved one who is affected by these diseases isn't able to question the causes of them, techological civilization.

 

I don't have any data on this but it seems the more technocological/advanced/whatever we get the higher the rates of these diseases we have.

 

That's only because people are living long enough to succumb to them because of the improvements in public health and nutrition that science and technology has brought about. Give most people a choice and they'll take a swollen prostate at 75 over watching most of their family wiped out by periodic plagues, infections, starvation/malnutrition, having a significant number of their wives/sisters/mothers die during childbirth, etc.

[ScottP]

solution to reducing human populations to a desirable level.

[DirtyHarry]

If civilization collapsed today it would not be a good thing for the rest of the planet. It would be a bad thing.

The increased demand for bushmeat resulting from massive starvation would surely doom all the endangered species you are now professing to be worried about.

 

And Mr. E would never find a suitable beer hat.

[JayB]

If civilization collapsed today it would not be a good thing for the rest of the planet. It would be a bad thing.

 

People don't think about conservation when they're concerned about immediate survival. The increased demand for bushmeat resulting from massive starvation would surely doom all the endangered species you are now professing to be worried about.

 

It sounds to me like you are really saying "The world would be a better place if we killed off all the rich people, and all the poor people, and just me and my privileged hippie friends survived on our commune". Sorry but that's a fantasy I can't buy into.

 

 

Amazing. First time in recorded history when there's been a Brazier/Brayshaw tag-team beat down.

 

I'm sorry if this seems a bit harsh, downfall, but you can hardly expect much in the way of popular support for this kind of thinking - any more than you could expect all of the non born-again folks to respond enthusiastically to folks fantasizing about/eagerly awaiting the moment when all of the folks who have yet to sign up for the PTL Club's mailing list will be enduring incalculable grief and suffering.

 

Just out of curiosity - how old are you and what is your educational background?

[downfall]

People don't think about conservation when they're concerned about immediate survival. The increased demand for bushmeat resulting from massive starvation would surely doom all the endangered species you are now professing to be worried about.

 

Interesting point. So you think that the rate of wild habitat destrutcion and killing of wild animals/plants would increase from the rate it already is at if civilization were to end?

 

It sounds to me like you are really saying "The world would be a better place if we killed off all the rich people, and all the poor people, and just me and my privileged hippie friends survived on our commune". Sorry but that's a fantasy I can't buy into.

 

Where did I say that? Where did Jensen say that? If civilization ended they only people who would have any benefit are those who already knew how to survive off the land in their current locale. I honestly don't know how to do this and I would assume that most hippies on communes don't relly know how to do that either. Its a skill that most of modern civilization has lost even if you say you are for or against that civilization.

[G-spotter]

What is a commune but living off the land? Or are you even against sustainable agriculture?

 

Maybe you're ignoring the fact that even the hunter-gatherer lifestyle causes massive extinctions (see Pleistocene decline in megafauna).

 

The rate of extinction would DEFINITELY increase from what it is now. Unless you are fantasizing about some magical process where 99.9% of the human population suddenly vanishes tomorrow, with no protracted period of starvation, hunting or food, marching like locusts over the land destroying resources they no longer have the technology to sustain the use of. That's a pretty harsh final solution. Not even time to wave goodbye.

[olyclimber]

Brining civilization in a saltwater mixture before you cook it adds flavor, tenderness, and reduces cooking times.

[DirtyHarry]

If civilization ended they only people who would have any benefit are those who already knew how to survive off the land in their current locale.

 

Or the people who had the bigger guns and armies and could prosper by taking from the less powerful and inflicting their own political / social agendas on others.