fear_and_greed Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Unless you are fantasizing about some magical process where 99.9% of the human population suddenly vanishes With GWB finger on the Iran nuke button, all things are possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 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. A sweeping generalisation guaranteed to raise the ire of the left with little basis in fact. There's the JayB we love Hunter Gatherers Jayb; stewardship isn't as foreign a concept as you suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downfall Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 Hey people , it would be cool if you stopped attacking my subject line and maybe gave a listen to the audio and then attacked the contents of that audio. These points aren't mine, they are Derick Jensen's and I was interested in discussing them not try and have myself a lookup session with all his books trying to proxy between a bunch of random points based on the anti-civ subject line and what he wrote/spoke about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 If you remove the organized economics that supports things like energy production, then you immediately find yourself in a situation where billions of people are going to want to start chopping down trees to for cooking and heating. We'd probably deforest the planet in less than a year. Clever plan. Reminds me of Platonic and Marxian political systems: this will work if we can get these impossible, magical conditions to exist and then sustain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 This different way of life is characterized by honesty, appreciation of beauty, and connection with the natural world thought there was a new forum for this stuff... cafe sesi-limp-wristed-gremlin-tivioso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Reminds me of Platonic and Marxian political systems: this will work if we can get these impossible, magical conditions to exist and then sustain it. Toss libertarianism in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 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. A sweeping generalisation guaranteed to raise the ire of the left with little basis in fact. There's the JayB we love Hunter Gatherers Jayb; stewardship isn't as foreign a concept as you suggest. The stewardship you are talking about was pretty much involuntary. The preservation that you are talking about occured simply because they lacked the technology and the population that they would have needed to wipe out the resources that they were dependent upon - at least most of the time. Check the lit on megafaunal exctintions, Easter Island, etc for some real examples from the past - and take a look at what happens the moment that they get their hands on technology and it's their choices and behavior, rather than their impotence before nature, that dictates their relationship with the natural world. Doesn't jive too well with the utopian eco-fantasy of the golden, edenic past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downfall Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 What is a commune but living off the land? Or are you even against sustainable agriculture? I don't think this is the definition of commune . . . but that's not the point anyway. I'm not against sustainable agricutlre and I don't think Derick Jensen is against it either as long as it's truely sustainable and done in a way which also lets the eco-system be sustainable as well. Maybe you're ignoring the fact that even the hunter-gatherer lifestyle causes massive extinctions (see Pleistocene decline in megafauna). Ok, how about posting some reference? 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. Humm, sounds kind of like whats already happening. http://local.google.com/local?hl=en&q=hope,+bc&t=k&ll=49.696062,-120.401917&spn=0.516993,1.549072 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downfall Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 If you remove the organized economics that supports things like energy production, then you immediately find yourself in a situation where billions of people are going to want to start chopping down trees to for cooking and heating. We'd probably deforest the planet in less than a year. Clever plan. Reminds me of Platonic and Marxian political systems: this will work if we can get these impossible, magical conditions to exist and then sustain it. Yet the current energy production system is based almost entirely on resources which exist in a finite capacity. Running out or resources or turning off and saving the resources, in the end, seem to have the same consequences? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBRstreetgang Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 As much as I'd love to see citys crumble I have to say that I do enjoy such things as dynamic rope, sticky rubber, and aluminium. Civilizations gonna fall regardless and I will be driving in the vantage desert offing people for their fuel and supplies. Does anyone want to join my warrior tribe? Give the boot to your anarchism and embrace your nihilism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I'm ready to bring down civilization. Lets fuck shit up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny_Tuff Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 "...brining down civilization?" Sounds like a real pickle to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 The stewardship you are talking about was pretty much involuntary. The preservation that you are talking about occured simply because they lacked the technology and the population that they would have needed to wipe out the resources that they were dependent upon - at least most of the time. Check the lit on megafaunal exctintions, Easter Island, etc for some real examples from the past - and take a look at what happens the moment that they get their hands on technology and it's their choices and behavior, rather than their impotence before nature, that dictates their relationship with the natural world. Doesn't jive too well with the utopian eco-fantasy of the golden, edenic past. JayB- Except for recent efforts much "stewardship" still falls under the accidental or direct self interest category. If the event horizon is to far out (Global Warming) we do nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Money rules in today's civilization. Try getting rid of it. Question is: Were the Native Americans more of an advanced society over the white man becuase they had less? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Nice banjo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustin_B Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Dru, JayB, and others, you are so far off here you might as well be talking about bolting cracks. Bringing down civilization isn’t about “people”, its about the planet and all the life we share the planet with. How many of you (JayB, Dru) listened to audio clips? My guess? None. Further more, how many listened with an open mind? My guess? Again, none. And certainly no one who responded within a couple hours of the original post. Go listen to it. JayB, you are way, way off on this one. Its not a prophecy, and he doesn’t want to be “spared”. Derrick is only thinking about the planet, not himself. I know its hard for you to imagine someone so unselfish. But just try. Derrick is willing to give his life for the life of a fish, can you say the same? Derrick has a non-curable disease (I forget what it is right now). But since you didn’t listen to the clips, and simply rambled off your opinions, you wouldn’t know that. If Derrick has a disease caused by civilization, I don’t see why he can’t use civilization to cure it. (not sure what ‘cures’ he is using though). He’s not a scientologist. “If civilization collapsed today it would not be a good thing for the rest of the planet. It would be a bad thing.” That is absolutely the biggest load of crap I have ever heard come out of Dru’s computer, and there has been a lot of it. In the short term it would be bad, in the long term it would be good. The problem is people are only concerned “about the short-term habitat lose” and not the “long-term habitat gain”. I can’t see how we could do any more damage to the ocean’s large fish population than has already been done if civilization ended. Would you please go listen to the clips so we can have a meaningful discussion, otherwise we might as well be debating bouldering vs. alpine climbing. Remember when the earth was flat and no one wanted to believe it was round? The people who thought the earth was round were “whacko-nut-jobs”. Unfortunately its not as easy as sailing around the earth to prove the point here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I don't have the time to listen to this guy ramble for a couple of hours, and don't really think it's necessary as long as I understand his vision of an ideal future - which seems be one in which, at some point, most of the population dies off or is killed off in some fashion. Not sure how you can realistically get a 90% reduction in population in any realistic scenario without one or the other happening. It doesn't really matter to me whether the motivation for this fantasy is to "save the planet," eliminate particular races, or bring about some other utopia, golden future, etc. Same misanthropic fantasy, different rationale. Hopefully this guy will do his part to bring his fantasy to fruition by castrating himself and then committing suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 it's made out of people! people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustin_B Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 How much time do you spend on spraying here? I bet you have a couple of hours to spare if you dig deep. And, no, you don’t understand his vision of an “ideal future” as he realizes there is none. He has no ‘fantasies’, only realities. Derrick is not a misanthrope and loves all races. He loves all the planet’s creatures. Even JayBs. By the way, the clips are split up into two 1-hour long sessions. He doesn’t even mention bringing down civilization in the first clip. So even if you can only spare 30 minutes, its still worth while (although the first ~10 min of the first clip starts out a little slow). PS – the disease Derrick has (and openly discusses) is Crohn's disease, for which there is no known cure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Crohn's disease is a form of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 You can treat Crohn's effectively with a dose of worms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustin_B Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 overview of Crohn's disease Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 overview of Crohn's disease damn, thats a hell of a way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Worm dose treats Crohn's My friend has it and takes this treatment. It beats having parts of your bowel amputated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Does it say if IBD/Crohn's is caused/exacerbated by fecal impaction (full of shit)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.