Glad to see the topic come up on Grist - there some monumental arguing to be had on the issue.  I happen to be a huge fan of Jensen, and I'm glad to see his work discussed here.  

Jensen believes civilization should be brought down as soon as possible in order to save the planet.

Sigh. Are we going to go through this again? This is  same rhetoric that led astray my generation of activists (60s & 70s), as well as others farther back in history (revolutionary terrorism in the 19th and early 20th centuries).

Before anyone goes charging down the path that Jensen advocates, let me suggest some problems with projects like "bringing down civilization":

• Sects centered around charismatic, sociopathic leaders.
• Macho posturing.  
• Losing sight of what one is fighting for, as one's life becomes enmeshed in plots, secrecy, informers, etc.
• A cycle of violence, &  repression, violence & repression that never ends.
• Ruined lives, innocent victims.

Jensen is rather vague on what specifically he advocates.  In a disarming statement (sorry, don't remember URL), he admits that he himself is terrible at mechanical skills and would be a flop at direct action.  

Be very careful about prophets who call for extreme action, when they have no roadmaps, no analysis, no experience.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

In contrast, Jensen basically has a temperament -- grumpy, misanthropic apocalypticism -- and a set of wildly broad generalizations. In every era of human history there have been people warning that the End Is Nigh. They've all been wrong so far.

grist.org

Bart is no doubt right to mistrust Jensen's not-so-practical advice.  But Jensen's basic cynicism about human nature seems, unfortunately, all too well founded.

And then, is Bart not revealing his own cynical side?  Is it really likely that a follower of Jensen will morph into a Patty Hearst redux?

On the other hand, McDonough sounds wonderful, but crazy.  I confess that it would take little short of a religious conversion, before I might be willing to place so much faith in the good of technology.  And yet, it seems inhumane not to encourage McDonough and his disciples to keep playing.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

As usual, reality will most likely be some combination of the above, rather than one of the extreme visions.  

It's unlikely that technology will solve everything, and just as likely that it will solve nothing.  It will solve some problems, but our lifestyles will have to change and adapt.  Civilization as we know it will end, but in its place will be a different kind of civilization.  Life will go on, it will just be different, just as our life and civilization today is different than what people experienced 150 or 200 years ago.  

Check out Robert Costanza's paper:
"Visions of Alternative (Unpredictable) Futures and Their Use in Policy Analysis"

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/art5/

Good as far as it goes, but he needs to include The Stand and Planet of the Apes in his possible future alternatives.

Our problems were shortages of whale oil light, horse crap in city streets, and farm produce that could not be transported to the nearest city.  Television, genetics, satellites, tiny personal computers, Google, refrigerators, aluminum, organ transplants, the new physics of nanoparticles, and so on and on... these things were not imagined by the futurists and prophets of the past.

I believe we are about to enter into a new era of science and technology that goes way beyond the imagination.

caniscandida: Is it really likely that a follower of Jensen will morph into a Patty Hearst redux?

Patty Hearst was a socialite who accidentally found herself among the SLA revolutionaries (she was kidnapped). She became caught up in the madness and joined them.

Don't underestimate group pressure and the force of circumstance. Most of the people involved with the ill-fated ultra-left groups were idealistic and intelligent.  "There but for fortune, go you or I."

My impression of Jensen is that his childhood history of trauma powers his passionate defense of nature and the underdog. He is sensitive, articulate and committed - his message is very appealing. Unfortunately, his lack of judgment about political action can easily lead to tragedy.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

    To those who love the apocalypse (Jensen) followers, I have some problems.  First of all, let me admit that I can't tell the future (in 1972, I called everyone everywhere and predicted a McGovern landslide, and who forsaw Reagan and Bush??).

    I agree 100% with Bart about the dangers of Jensen followers (and yes, I lived through that time).  We end up with middle class folks running around destroying things.  One of the most endearing images in my mind comes from Edward Abbey in "The Monkey Wrench Gang".  (A favorite or so-called radical environmentalists.)

    The image has to do with people going to tear down a billboard.  How do they get there?  On a bicycle?  Hmmm, no, in a large cadillac, if my memory holds.  Contradiction?  

    Post apocalypsim (grin) amounts to Waiting for Godot.  The insane-right evangelists believe Jesus will come back and save us, other folks believe we can wait and live simply after the "change".  (Which presumably will not kill them, only "others"). (I am not addressing any of the responders in this forum personally, just the general trend (smile)).

    Whether McDonough is right or wrong, he advocates things that can be done, and done now.  

    Want a really radical solution?  Get out in the streets and start organizing your neighborhood, start making the local changes.  Lobby your a** off.  Get rid of your car.  Dump excess possessions and move to a smaller space.  Be a vegetarian.

    Too hard?  Blowing up things sounds like more fun?  Sigh.

patrick

The priest advocates a technological solution to sustain civilization.  McDonough's work is pushing development closer to Aldo Leopold's view of the land.  McDonough is advocating the development of technologies that place human development squarely into the flow of matter and energy that composes the land community.  In McDonough's future humans would again become in Leopold's terms members of the land community.

The prophet advocates the destruction of civilization as soon as possible for the protection of the biota.  While a radical approach, this is indeed what must happen.  Rather, civilization as we know it must be reshaped.  We must adapt to a changing global environment and we must remake our civilization to become one with the land. Jensen is right in the urgency of his call, the resturcturing of civilization must be agressive and most important, it must begin now.

A prudent approach to the salvation of human kind and a revised version of our civilization is to find ways to use technology to improve the speed at which civilization is reshaped.  The predictions of the priest and the prophet are both right and wrong at the same time.  The two seemingly opposing views of the future are not mutually exclusive, rather they cry out for a measured, well planned, well executed cooperative effort.

I look forward to a future human civilization that has once again become a full and participating member of the land community.  Where sustaining the land is understood to be the pillar on which humanity must stand.

Regards, Professorlife

Surely you jest. The end has indeed come for many civilizations over the course of human history, so, no, the prophets of doom haven't "all been wrong so far." In fact, it's safe to say that more civilizations have collapsed than have persisted to the present day. Ours may well add to that record, the primary difference being that it's global in scope and threatens the stability of the entire community of life through mass extinction, climate disruption, and all the persistent pollutants dumped into the food web.

I'm a big fan of Derrick Jensen's A Language Older Than Words and Walking On Water: Reading, Writing, and Revolution, and I find a great deal of value in The Culture of Make Believe, Welcome to the Machine: Science, Surveillance, and the Culture of Control, and much of Endgame. At the end of all that reading, though, I still find that I disagree with what I consider to be his most basic premise: The only way to stop civilization from destroying the world is to bring it down as quickly as possible in a sort of planned demolition, like bringing down a condemned building. I don't know if there's any way to stop civilization from destroying the world, but I  don't think that plan has a chance in hell of working.

That written, I think you're being unfair to Jensen. I've met and spent several hours with him, and I found him to be a loving, compassionate, and funny person. While I can understand how someone only slightly familiar with his work might describe him as "misanthropic," that's not at all the case, IMO. He's simply convinced that our civilization is too far gone to undergo "a voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living," and he's unwilling to let it wipe out a great deal more of the community of life before it inevitably collapses from overshoot. Which is exactly what he and I are convinced it will do--if it continues on its present path.

But he calls for us to stop civilization by all necessary means for the sake of humanity, as well. As he makes unmistakably clear in Language, our way of life is brutally destructive to us--as communities, families, and individuals--and he wants us to end it so that we may have better, happier lives. Whatever you think of his philosophy and worldview, it's simply not accurate in my view to call him "misanthropic."

Is he grumpy? Well, sometimes, for sure, but so am I. It's hard to live through worldslaughter and be Mr. Sunshine all the time.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

The trepidation of Bart, and of Patrick after him, is a bit clearer now.  But given what is before the court at present, you make a persuasive case, that Jensen's "grumpiness" is in fact a function of his love -- if I may use such an over-used and inflated term.

Is he planting seeds of violence in his tender disciples?  Well, I gather you would know better than most.  And it looks like his "destroy civilization!" aria amounts more to just a catchy tune than to a serious, practical political revolutionary agenda.

Patrick does well to remind us that those who expect confidently to survive, and flourish, after the "revolution," are fools.

(For some reason, I have in my head Orwell's classic, "1984," and Frank Miller's epic, "A Canticle for Liebowitz."  And the young, very charming Don Johnson's early vehicle, pre-Miami Vice, "A Boy and His Dog," in which the dog is apparently the most intelligent being in post-nuclear Phoenix.)

(To say nothing of the "Mad Max" movies, of which the second, "Road Warrior," is the best.  Though I fear it may not be polite to bring up Mel Gibson in polite company.)

(And "Tank Girl"!)

(And wasn't there a Ralph Bakshi cartoon, same genre, ages ago?)

All I am saying is, it is not at all clear that a "revolution" is really being fomented, let alone planned.  Call me naive, but I would be very surprised if one can actually hope to start a "revolution" these days by publishing hardback books.

Whatever.  But morally, SMLowry is right, and deserves to be heard.  I think we all understand what those systemic evils are that she refers to by the terms "development" and "civilization."  It seems petty to require her to explain herself further.  The reference to Orion, that magnificent, heroic journal, sans pareille, should suffice.

And really, Yohannan Dag, that is what you are saying, I think, when you summarize Jensen, and write, "our way of life is brutally destructive to us."

Thanks, finally, for pointing out that "the end of civilization" is a silly expression, seeing that lots of civilizations have ended.

Why, some of us had barely got over the loss of cuneiform, when we had to deal with the death of rock-and-roll.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Why does this matter?  I believe that one of the wrong roads environmentalists travel is the romanticization of some imagined agrarian past.  My mother if fond of reminding me of her two uncles who died as boys from dysentery in the last century (commonly spread by the common house fly in rural areas at that time).

    The past was a time of poverty and hardship for most people.  Alas, they were generally not literate, so we often don't have their words to remind us.  But the information can be found.

    There is much wrong with our current so-called civilization, but really, claiming that it causes poverty needs explanation. (smile).

    And I can't believe you let me get away with "Post apocalypsim" (smile).

patrick

But in fact, I have nothing all that better to offer: Post-Apocalypticism?

Mel Gibson's new movie, by the way, which is in the can, is called "Apocalypto."  That is a Greek verb, meaning "I conceal."  Curious, given that most of the dialogue of "Passion of the Christ" should have been spoken in Greek, but for reasons of his own, Gibson did it in either Aramaic or Latin.

Anyway, now that he is royally anti-Semitic persona non grata, the rumors are that Disney is not even going to release "Apocalypto" in December, as originally planned.

!A ver!

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

     I lived in Maine for a bit (in the early 1970's) and had my draft physical there.  At the physical, many of the young men who came in had bow legs often associated with rickets, and very bad teeth.  At that time, two of the poorest counties in the United States were Washington and Lee counties in Maine.  Shoe workers went on strike because they were only making $1.90 an hour (WITH a union contract).

    The poverty was already there.  That conditions are getting worse would be do not to development, but to the way in which it is implemented (no strong union base, poor laws to protect the poor, tax policies that favor the rich and so on).

    As to third world countries, the Maquiladoras attract people because what they offer is BETTER than the alternative (starving in the countryside).  Their environmental and safety issues are implementation issues, not issues related to the idea of developement.

    In what you call the "fourth world", the developement is happening in response to the poverty in many cases.  Is it happening well?  Oftentimes no.  But most people in those slums would rather not return to the countryside where things were worse.

    The creation of surplus wealth (more money than is needed for a hand to mouth survival) is what allows us to progress and provide for a better future for our progeny.  That surplus wealth can be used poorly (as in the United States) or wisely.

    We need to invest it in developing a sustainable equitable world for all peoples.  

patrick

    I had to go look for the thing (magazine).  I am going to guess this is what has folks up in arms?

http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/06-2om/Davis.html

    Mike Davis on slum ecology?

    It is an interesting article, full of half truths and mistatements.

    For instance, Chinese cities are not teeming slums (and are some of the largest in the world), perhaps the problem is capitalism (smile).

    Second, what a middle class American sees as a filthy slum, might actually be a vibrant community with a rich life (though in need of services and more money).  It might be more useful to see them as individual communities through the eyes of their own people.

    Mr. Davis lumps "the peripheral economic niches of personal service, casual labor, street-vending, ragpicking, begging, and crime" together.  Frankly, some street-vendors do quite well, and casual labor (though problematic) is not the same as begging or crime.  This sort of broad brush rhetoric serves not to really enlighten, but to horrify, and perhaps even tittilate (a bit).  

    Furthermore he says "ALL THE CLASSICAL PRINCIPLES of urban planning, including the preservation of open space and the separation of noxious land uses from residences, are stood on their heads in poor cities".  There is a problem with this, in that "noxious land uses" usually includes shopping and all forms of work.  "Classical... urban planning" has given us sprawl and an automotive dominant culture.  While certainly we need to not have people living next to toxic dumps, we should realize that they do so in America as well as in the third world.  This is an issue of environmental justice, not just developement.

   Still he is correct when he blames this on global economic policies.  Horrible globe!  Bad globe!!  Umm, wait, that means America.  America dominates the World Bank, and has for the last forty years (or so), insisted that the way to develop is to destroy the public sector (read health and education) to enable a new class of wealthy to form.

   Only a few countries have been able to resist this formula.  

   So, it's not development per se, but the way that WE as AMERICANS have forced it on the world.

   The slums are bad in that we demand that their governments not invest in services, or we won't give them any capital.  

   That is the real problem.  

   If we don't like the result, then why do we do things this way?

patrick

among our species' genetic inclinations are :
A]  amassing symbols of status
B]  fear and suspicion of the `other'
C]  procreation
D]  fascination with new and shiny

altho it may seem like a revision of some `original sin' orthodoxy, it does seem to me that given our propensity as a species to act in a short term, acquisitional based manner, we will continue to pillage this planet until sheer Malthusian geometry overwhelms our resources, our bio defenses or our collective `sanity'.

Interesting that this article invokes the religious imagery of prohet/priest.   i have a hunch that our `awakening' will be along spiritual lines.  For instance, most human societies have had incest taboos - ususally handed down as a god/goddess ordained prohibition.  Perhaps this was the result of thoughtful folk recalling the price of too similar genetic matings.  Can we hope that soon we will invoke the same prohibitions on pollution or resource depletion?  Or do we face a future of heavy handed religiosity - the fundamentalists who will equate any consumerism with apostasy?

Much as we might hold capitalism in high regard, i don't believe Adam Smith ever thought that there seems to be no limits to man's greed .  And he could not forsee that advertising would so easily convince us that we are not sufficient unto ourselves- that if we will buy `x', we will be happy.

      Do you have any evidence for these as genetic inclinations?

      For instance, prejudice has to be taught to children, they have no natural inclination towards it.

      Not everyone cares about symbols of status, this may also be a learned thing.

      You should take a close look at some of the many diverse cultures our species has produced.  A lot of what people think is genetic may just be culutral reflections.

      Don't forget altruism!

patrick

MackCat wrote:

<<
among our species' genetic inclinations are :
A]  amassing symbols of status
B]  fear and suspicion of the `other'
C]  procreation
D]  fascination with new and shiny
>>

"C" is obvious, and relatively easily able to be recognized for what it is.

"D" is true but childish; yes, it also should be recognized for what it is; but really, it is rather insulting to bring it up as something so very important.

"A" is subtle, but definitely a problem.  Very much a macho thing, and so related to "C" and "D."  Cf. the East Asian cult of shark fin soup, tiger penis, and rhino horn.

"B" is arguably the root of all evil.  Obviously, we need to do all we can, everywhere, to encourage everybody to sit back and wait a bit.  E.g., won't the Chinese be happier,in the long run, by holding off from invading Tibet, and sitting down and waiting, a bit?


Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

       Tibet is part of China, so I am not sure what you are talking about.  Do Americans invade Puerto Rica or Hawaii when they go there?  Samoa?  Virgin Islands?  Marinaras?

       I thought Christians believed money was the root of all evil (smile).

       So, please explain your comments re: B, if you don't mind!

       Personally I have never procreated.  I know many people who feel the same.  The desire to do so seems to be tied as much to economic and social status as anything else (poorer people have more desire, as do women without power (desire is not quite the right word here)).

       As for "D", birds are also fascinated with new and shiny things.  This has not led them into a society based on overconsumption, or to build an industrial civilization.

      As for A, again, whether this is genetic or not is questionable.  But certainly, it need not be tied to consumption.  How we chose to define status is clearly social.  Look how easily it is manipulated by a small electronic box with pictures and sound.

      Again, if we want to find someone or something to "blame", we need to do a better job.  (Smile).

patrick

please understand that i do not view any of these as genetic inevitabilities.  Rather, i see our species as most likely to operate under these tendencies on a broad statistical basis.   Nor do inherited survival enhancing characteristics left over from our ice age past mean that these are desirable traits in todays world.  

The trick, as i see it, is to overcome these traits.  As i said before,  it may well take almost a spiritual experience:  to come to a deep-in-our-core understanding of how pecious this planet truly is...

mackat

Please see this link for a history of Tibet:
http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/tibet.html

Tibet was invaded by China in 1949 and has been subjected to colonization, displacement, and all the attendant horrors ever since.

Of course, the US invaded and colonized most of the places you mention. It just happened further back in history, and we don't happen to be imprisoning and torturing any of their leaders without trial at the moment. Nor do we plan to move massive numbers of our population there and displace the current residents.
Rosemary

But anyway, yes, I most certainly believe that Americans are in invasion-mode when they travel to the islands that you mentioned.

To Mack Cat: I do not deny at all that all four of your examples are kinds of human motivation.  It is just hard for me to understand them as equivalent in effect.  But I agree that novelty makes a lot of sense -- rather more than the reflexivity of light.  Sorry if I was initially harsh.

On shininess, and the birds: Yes, right, that is apparently an accurate observation, at least in a few lineages.  We may well ask why they, and certain primates for that matter, show interest in things that reflect light.  A potential food source?  Hmmm, that does not seem obvious, does it.

As for the morality of birds attracted to shiny things, I am agnostic.  Male bower birds collect all kinds of odd things, including shiny ones sometimes, in the expectation that females will be attracted.  There is an excellent, grim, depressing novel by Barbara Gowdy, "The White Bone," about a number of related African elephants who are trying to cope with human hunters and a severe drought, told from their perspective, Jack-London-like.  One imaginative elephant, who gets lost and separated after a human attack, discovers a rear-view mirror, broken off the door of a vehicle.  She uses it to attract some eagles, by flashing it toward the sky; she hopes to learn from the eagles information about the whereabouts of her family; but all the eagles want is to fly off with the mirror, so fascinated are they by it.

On the legacy of the Ice Age: I entirely agree with Mack Cat that much that was adaptive and beneficial back then serves us not well at all nowadays, and we would be better off getting over it.

Painting animals deep inside of caves was kind of cool, though.

On the source of evil, according to Christians: Yes, there is a late New Testament text, I think in the Letter of James, but possibly 1 Peter, that identifies it as money.  And that is not a bad guess at all.  But it is hardly an essential Christian doctrine, and Christians are not committed to it.  A more classically Christian doctrine is that the "radix malorum," the root of (all) evils, is "superbia," or pride.  That was the sin of Lucifer, the most beautiful of the angels, who thought he could rival God, and rose up in rebellion, and so was cast down.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

As many have written in this thread, nothing is permanent. Some ethnic groups, like the former Soviet ones mentioned above, have succeeded in gaining independence, and Tibet may also. If Tibet is someday a wealthy independent nation, will it all have been worth it? I suppose the Irish might say yes (some of them). I can't think of many others who would.

As a Quaker, I believe that people should be as free as possible to decide their own destiny, whether it looks like wealth or poverty to others. If you don't want development, you shouldn't have to have it. This is, ironically, why I agree with Patrick that McDonough is preferable to Jensen--because the changes he tries to make are voluntary and concrete (as opposed to structural.) Likewise, I agree that what we all need to do is make small, real changes to the world immediately around us, rather than developing big dangerous plans for the end of civilization.
Rosemary

   Prior to the Chinese revolution, Tibet was a theology, a feudal theology.  I suspect that if you believe in it's form of Buddhism then the feudalism doesn't matter to you.

   Rosemary, many of the things you accuse the Chinese of doing, the local religious feudal leaders were also accused of doing.  And no dictator wants to give up his/her lifestyle.

   If you are concerned about timelines, do you want to go back to world borders boundaries as of when?

   The US invaded and took control of many lands in the Pacific at the end of World War II.  Hardly a long time ago.  And do you really think that it was a gentle invasion, without rape and violence?

   Since 1949, the list of nations invaded and occupied by the US is long, the list of nations with governments overthrown is longer.  I am not sure where you are living, but look for news on a place called Iraq, and on a prison system that includes places like Guananmo Bay.  There are people in jail now associated with the Free Puerto Rica movement.  American prison system?  Not a topic for here perhaps.

   China is not the former Soviet Union.  As for Tibet, the government is spending huge sums on building railroads and developing it.  How many other developing countries do this for their ethnic minority areas?

   In terms of Tibet and the environment, you should look for stories on the new railroad and the money spent to make it environmentally sensitive.

   As to poor people being able to refuse development, the question is, who speaks for them?  "Traditional leaders"?  In some cases that makes sense, but in others, that is a term that means the same as "dictator for life".

   FWIW, Tibetans are not subject to the one child policy in China (minority groups are exempt), and like members of other minority groups, get affirmative action (preferential treatment) when applying to colleges and universities (in a developing country, this is a big concession, at least according to my students).

   I voted for California to break up into five states, and there was talk of a seperate nation once (People's Republic of Berkeley and all that), but it was about as likely as a free Tibet.

patrick

       Sorry I am not a fan of Pinker, I lean more towards left wing evolutionary theories (grin).  I read some of Pinkers writings on grammar and language, and as an English teacher, was extremely unimpressed.  I am not a fan of sociobiology as well (I recognize this puts me in a minority).

      One of the interesting things about living in different cultures is watching the truly different ways people react to things.  I have become more and more convinced that we are more cultural creatures than biological when it comes to things beyond basic behavior.  (Which I think is fascinating!)

     Dear CanisCandida, as an unbeliever, I am of course tempted to defend poor Lucifer (whose rebellion is told by the victors, not himself (grin)).  (Only the Southern Americans were ever successful in losing the war, but winning the history.)

     I will accept pride as your Christian source of evil, though not sure why it is the worst thing you can be.

     One more point about Tibet and China.  In describing it as seperate geographically and culturally, you should be aware that the Tibet of Tibetan claims flows seemlessly into modern China was (except in the remote Himalayas) always populated by a mixture of different ethnice groups.

    Squirrels are also sometimes attracted to shiny things (I am not sure about other rodents), and used to be considered thieves (though if you have no sense of property, I am not sure how that applies!).

    I guess my disagreement with MackCat is still related to the importance of these four aspects of human life.  I am not sure that they are our main problems.

    As an American, I would argue that our main modern problems are our (seemingly) inability to think about a future longer than say six months ahead, and our inability to work with each other to promote social and environmental change (such as eliminating poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, and ummmmm global warming).

    patrick

As far as the larger point you make about "feudal leaders," I can only say that there are hundreds of indigenous groups all over the world who are fighting development and the destruction of their cultures: from the Arctic to the Amazon to the Pacific. You don't have to be a feudal overlord to want to maintain your traditional way of life. I support a wonderful organization called Global Response, which supports environmental activists worldwide, who often come from people living in agrarian or even hunter gatherer communities. These are ordinary people who risk their lives to try to stop dams, deforestation, mining and pollution, etc., so that their people can continue to live in the way they have for centuries or millenia. If everyone was so gungho about working at Walmart, surely they wouldn't resist all that our wonderful civilization has to offer. (And when I say "our" I mean both American and Chinese.)
Rosemary

BTW, i don't think you are in a minority in your view-  at least in the States.  After all, over 50% of americans do not accept Darwinian evolution  as the best explanation for biology.  [let alone, Lucifer! grin]

i will point out that your paragraph:
"As an American, I would argue that our main modern problems are our (seemingly) inability to think about a future longer than say six months ahead, and our inability to work with each other to promote social and environmental change (such as eliminating poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, and ummmmm global warming)."

fits rather well into the socibiologists prediction of human species behavior.  

i sometimes feel that it isn't neccessarily that i , as an aware human, fall into all that above named behavior.  Instead, our community seems so easily swayed by the one sentence solution to complex problems which often play to those genetic core fears.  

But there it is again- the sort of liberal paradox....

      Tibet is full of practising Buddhists, and I eat (and teach for free) at a local Buddhist vegetarian restaurant. (Local being Beijing China).

      There is a difference between spiritual practice and political practice.  Do I think that the world is better off with Theocrats in control?  No.  I prefer that religion keep to spiritual issues and stay out of politics.

      Which does not mean that religious people can't enter into politics.  But I don't like people telling me that "I" must act in a certain way because of "their" religious beliefs.

      There is a difference between Tibet and Iraq.  You may not agree, but China argues (with reason) that Tibet has historically been part of China.  Iraq was never part of America.  

      And please, don't lump American and Chinese civilization and culture together.  They are not the same!  (smile)  I am not, in fact, sure what that particular comment refers to?

      There is a difference between indigenous leaders in tribal based societies and feudal leaders.  Tribalism is not the same as feudalism (and I am not advocating the former (smile), but am certainly opposed to the later!).

      And many people oppose dams or deforestation (the Chinese government actively works against the latter, and supports or opposes the former depending on circumstances, for example) without opposing electricity, modern medicine, education for their children, or equal rights for women.

      You seem (at least to me) to be lumping too many things together, which I find a bit confusing.  Sorry.  Any clarity you care to provide will help me (smile).

patrick

  MackCat,

      Sorry about the Lucifer references!  I am an UNBELIEVER, so was just joking!  (I forgot that it is difficult to joke about religion.)  I am a firm believer in evolution (try Gould and Dawkins), but find Pinker to be a bit overreaching in what ascribes to biology.

     While what I said may indeed fit in to a sociolbiologist reference if I ascribed it to biology, I don't.  I ascribe it to culture (ascribe, the word of the day (grin)).

     Culture is easier to change than biology!  Though both are damn hard. (smile)

patrick

      Another way to see the world is just "us".  You can also change your definition of "us" to find an "us" that makes you happy and gives you cause for optimism.

      There is of course, great cause for pessimism, especially for Americans.  

      But, we should choose optimism, because it gives us the energy to struggle on, and struggle on, we must.  We may not win, but we will not be defeated!

patrick (who read that far down)

The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.

Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.

If there are no gaps there is no emotion.

Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.

When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.

There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.

People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.

Emotion ends.

Man becomes machine.

A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.

FAST VISUALS WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.

SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.

A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.

A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.

To read the complete article please follow either of these links :

Article

Article

sushil_yadav

In Derrick's favor:

Viewed through google earth, industrial society does indeed appear to be a cancer on the face of the earth.  Our myopic lack of preparedness or strategic action makes collapse seem inevitable.  Al Gore's presentation brought home the fact positive feedback loops with seriously negative consequences are already underway.  We are, in essence, too late already.

I doubt that we will act in time to prevent a serious environmental and economic contraction that will entail many millions if not billions of deaths and major reduction in the ability of the planet to support life.  It is likely that this will include spasms of social and political violence.  

I'm 54. Perhaps I'm just too old for revolution. I'm concerned about both the human and ecological suffering that such a collapse will entail.  

In McDonnaugh's favor
I believe we have no choice but to pursue the kinds of change that McDonaugh proposes.  Not because I believe that we can save civilization as we know it, but because McDonnaugh's concepts and ideas will help to cushion the fall -- to maintain islands of functional ecosystems, to decrease the loss of human life and to increase the capacity those remaining to rebuild an ecologically sound relationship between humans and the environment.

That's it for now...

Everyone who agrees with Jensen, please turn off your computers now and purge your homes of all post-17th-century technology.

*

Let suppose Jensen got his way. How does he propose preventing the return to an industrial civilization? Will the prophet become a priest who is permitted to maintain control over technology to "save " the rest of us? And what will be done to those who resist?

As a Vietnam veteran, Jensen reminds me of the quote " in order to save the village, we had to burn it down".  Save it for whom?
"meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Mcdonough-like quote:  " I work for the government, and I'm here to help you". Advanced technoloy, scientific materialism, sustainable development will do nothing to aid human enlightenment and transcedence of our finite limits.

gwager Kalamazoo "We all got it comin', kid"

Unpleasant as it may be, Jensen's view of what our so called civilization is doing to the planet is accurate.  I also find it difficult to disagree with his view that the system needs to be brought down as soon as possible.  The only question is how do you do it - if it's even possible.  That is a question with no good answers.  

In any case, the real world state of cradle to cradle technology is a very long way from nature's version.  Just read the lead article in Feb's Environmental Building News (vol 16 no 2).  It was devoted to cradle to cradle and the McDoonough Braungart C2C Certification.

al eggen