A FEW MONTHS AGO at a gathering of activist friends someone asked, “If our world is really looking down the barrel of environmental catastrophe, how do I live my life right now?”
The question stuck with me for a few reasons. The first is that it’s the world, not our world. The notion that the world belongs to us — instead of us belonging to the world — is a good part of the problem.
The second is that this is pretty much the only question that’s asked in mainstream media (and even among some environmentalists) about the state of the world and our response to it. The phrase “green living” brings up 7,250,000 Google hits, or more than Mick Jagger and Keith Richards combined (or, to look at it another way, more than a thousand times more than the crucial environmental philosophers John A. Livingston and Neil Evernden combined). If you click on the websites that come up, you find just what you’d expect, stuff like “The Green Guide: Shop, Save, Conserve,” “Personal Solutions for All of Us,” and “Tissue Paper Guide for Consumers.”
The third and most important reason the question stuck with me is that it’s precisely the wrong question. By looking at how it’s the wrong question, we can start looking for some of the right questions. This is terribly important, because coming up with right answers to wrong questions isn’t particularly helpful.
So, part of the problem is that “looking down the barrel of environmental catastrophe” makes it seem as though environmental catastrophe is the problem. But it’s not. It’s a symptom — an effect, not a cause. Think about global warming and attempts to “solve” or “stop” or “mitigate” it. Global warming (or global climate catastrophe, as some rightly call it), as terrifying as it is, isn’t first and foremost a threat. It’s a consequence. I’m not saying pikas aren’t going extinct, or the ice caps aren’t melting, or weather patterns aren’t changing, but to blame global warming for those disasters is like blaming the lead projectile for the death of someone who got shot. I’m also not saying we shouldn’t work to solve, stop, or mitigate global climate catastrophe; I’m merely saying we’ll have a better chance of succeeding if we recognize it as a predictable (at this point) result of burning oil and gas, of deforestation, of dam construction, of industrial agriculture, and so on. The real threat is all of these.
The same is true of worldwide ecological collapse. Extractive forestry destroys forests. What’s the surprise when extractive forestry causes forest communities — plants and animals and mushrooms and rivers and soil and so on — to collapse? We’ve seen it once or twice before. When you think of Iraq, is the first image that comes to mind cedar forests so thick the sunlight never reaches the ground? That’s how it was prior to the beginnings of this extractive culture; one of the first written myths of this culture is of Gilgamesh deforesting the plains and hillsides of Iraq to build cities. Greece was also heavily forested; Plato complained that deforestation harmed water quality (and I’m sure Athenian water quality boards said the same thing those boards say today: we need to study the question more to make sure there’s really a correlation). It’s magical thinking to believe a culture can effectively deforest and yet expect forest communities to sustain.
It’s the same with rivers. There are 2 million dams just in the United States, with 70,000 dams over six feet tall and 60,000 dams over thirteen feet tall. And we wonder at the collapse of native fish communities? We can repeat this exercise for grasslands, even more hammered by agriculture than forests are by forestry; for oceans, where plastic outweighs phytoplankton ten to one (for forests to be equivalently plasticized, they’d be covered in Styrofoam ninety feet deep); for migratory songbirds, plagued by everything from pesticides to skyscrapers; and so on.
The point is that worldwide ecological collapse is not some external and unpredictable threat — or gun barrel — down which we face. That’s not to say we aren’t staring down the barrel of a gun; it would just be nice if we identified it properly. If we means the salmon, the sturgeon, the Columbia River, the migratory songbirds, the amphibians, then the gun is industrial civilization.
A second part of the problem is that the question presumes we’re facing a future threat — that the gun has yet to go off. But the Dreadful has already begun. Ask passenger pigeons. Ask Eskimo curlews. Ask great auks. Ask traditional indigenous peoples almost anywhere. This is not a potential threat, but rather one that long-since commenced.
The larger problem with the metaphor, and the reason for this new column in Orion, is the question at the end: “how shall I live my life right now?” Let’s take this step by step. We’ve figured out what the gun is: this entire extractive culture that has been deforesting, defishing, dewatering, desoiling, despoiling, destroying since its beginnings. We know this gun has been fired before and has killed many of those we love, from chestnut ermine moths to Carolina parakeets. It’s now aimed (and firing) at even more of those we love, from Siberian tigers to Indian gavials to entire oceans to, in fact, the entire world, which includes you and me. If we make this metaphor real, we might understand why the question — asked more often than almost any other — is so wrong. If someone were rampaging through your home, killing those you love one by one (and, for that matter, en masse), would the question burning a hole in your heart be: how should I live my life right now? I can’t speak for you, but the question I’d be asking is this: how do I disarm or dispatch these psychopaths? How do I stop them using any means necessary?
Finally we get to the point. Those who come after, who inherit whatever’s left of the world once this culture has been stopped — whether through peak oil, economic collapse, ecological collapse, or the efforts of brave women and men fighting in alliance with the natural world — are not going to care how you or I lived our lives. They’re not going to care how hard we tried. They’re not going to care whether we were nice people. They’re not going to care whether we were nonviolent or violent. They’re not going to care whether we grieved the murder of the planet. They’re not going to care whether we were enlightened or not enlightened. They’re not going to care what sorts of excuses we had to not act (e.g., “I’m too stressed to think about it” or “It’s too big and scary” or “I’m too busy” or any of the thousand other excuses we’ve all heard too many times). They’re not going to care how simply we lived. They’re not going to care how pure we were in thought or action. They’re not going to care if we became the change we wished to see.
They’re not going to care whether we voted Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or not at all. They’re not going to care if we wrote really big books about it. They’re not going to care whether we had “compassion” for the CEOs and politicians running this deathly economy. They’re going to care whether they can breathe the air and drink the water. They’re going to care whether the land is healthy enough to support them.
We can fantasize all we want about some great turning, and if the people (including the nonhuman people) can’t breathe, it doesn’t matter. Nothing matters but that we stop this culture from killing the planet. It’s embarrassing even to have to say this. The land is the source of everything. If you have no planet, you have no economic system, you have no spirituality, you can’t even ask this question. If you have no planet, nobody can ask questions.
What question would I ask instead? What if, instead of asking “How shall I live my life?” people were to ask the land where they live, the land that supports them, “What can and must I do to become your ally, to help protect you from this culture? What can we do together to stop this culture from killing you?” If you ask that question, and you listen, the land will tell you what it needs. And then the only real question is: are you willing to do it?
Comments
As a longtime reader of Orion, I feel intrigued and very curious to see where Derrick Jensen’s column will take the magazine. His writing is compelling, haunting, provocative — and ultimately, frustrating to read because there are no real solutions here. He snubs those who “fantasize” about a great turning, while promoting a fantasy about bringing down civilization. I applaud Orion for its focus on artful and positive change, and look forward to more lively discussions including the one “how do we live our lives now”?
Brilliant article; Derrick Jensen, always a good read; this article could and should serve as the basis for classroom discussion,research, essays and forums in schools across our country.
What an extraordinary article! Yes, we can and have been able to answer many of the questions that have been presented to us concerning the changes to this little planet that allows us to exist. I totally agree that the right questions have not been asked. If we do not learn to ask the right questions, there is absolutely no way we can expect to get the right answers! Beautifully written piece! Nice job! 😉
I read this article on the ‘plane on my way to a professional meeting; it stopped me in my tracks. At the meeting, one of the organizers had set up a session on “Green “. After presetting the distressing findings of the IPCC, he ended with a recruiting add from the great war: “What did you do in the Great War, Daddy?”
What are we going to tell our children and grandchildren, if there are any, when they ask: what did you do to help solve the great climate crisis? That we recycled our newspapers and replaced our light bulbs? Jensen has it exactly right: its’ not that these things are bad, it’s that they are irrelevant to solving the real problem. Until, as Fullerton says, we can honestly start asking the right questions, we are all doomed, and we are taking the planet down with us.
I hope that in subsequent articles, Jensen asks some of the hard questions.
Jensen writes “If you ask that question, and you listen, the land will tell you what it needs. And then the only real question is: are you willing to do it?”
———-
Willing to do what, exactly? I don’t disagree with the way you frame the problem. But here once again I see something that I’ve seen in previous pieces by Jensen: cryptic comments about being “willing to do what is necessary.” Shades of the movie Body Heat.
What are you driving at? Blowing up developments? Violence? If that’s really what you mean and you don’t want to say so openly — which I’d understand — you’re mistaken. That method won’t work. The bad guys have more guns than you do and you’ll immediately lose what you really need in order to win environmental victories — public support.
The ugly, tedious truth about saving the environment is that somehow you have to get huge numbers of Americans to do pedestrian stuff like organize and vote and demand change. Maybe even by taking to the streets in large numbers like what happened in the 1960s. But more than once now I’ve seen these same cryptic references in Jensen pieces in Orion. And if what you’re doing is calling for ELF type tactics — as a matter of winning strategy, you are wrong.
Maybe I misread you, and if so I’m sorry, but you give such little information that I can’t imagine how anyone could know what you’re calling for. Cryptic is the word.
Since I first read Derrick’s book ” A Launguage Older Than Words” His writing has deeply moved me. Not that it matters, not that anything really matters. Intuitively I know his words ring true. I will indeed ask the earth what are we to do, and wait for the answer I know will come, for me. Thank you.
I, like others, am intrigued to see where this new column takes the magazine. This first submission seems, well, incredibly dark. It frames a potential pitfall in focus well – in that perhaps we are asking the wrong questions – but it also perpetuates a type of fuzzy logic. We are not in any danger of killing the planet. Its been through several mass extinctions and environmental catastrophes and has continued to orbit around the sun. Life itself has continued on. If the worst of global climate change occurs and humans – along with thousands of other species – vanish tomorrow the planet will still be here. Someday in the future it’ll harbor life again, despite our worst efforts to the contrary with all the current threats and impacts we’ve created.
What we should be afraid of is creating a toxic environment that no longer supports human life. One where we have no clean air to breathe, no fish to eat, no grain to grow. Yes, we want to save and conserve the species that share our current world, the “nonhuman people” as you put it, but we do so out of a deep recognition that saving fellow species serves to stabilize ecosystems that make human life possible.
I hope that future columns will not be so dark (nearly misanthropic) and will probe the important questions with important answers, or at least intelligent written amblings that might lead to broader discussion.
“Do what exactly?”
Derrick Jensen makes it very clear in his books that he is recruiting people to blow up dams and cell phone towers, while he writes books, of course.
As the comments accumulate for this article, I think we should all go back and revisit the pair of articles by Curtis White (Ecology of Work and The Idols of Environmentalism) published in Orion a while ago. I think they are similarly provocative to this one but much better. Anyone who has read anything by Jensen knew exactly what he was going to write one sentence in.
I, too, appreciate the thoughts expressed by Jensen here and in his other writings. We do have to get down to basic causes and realities of the planet. But like commenter #5, I believe Jensen went right past the most basic action, and ended at yet another environmental platitude. Rather than “listening to the land” which to me will also be something that future Earthlings will not care that we did (even if it’s a correct idea), what we must do is stated in a previous line: “Nothing matters but that we stop this culture from killing the planet.” That tells us what action to take with all our hearts and strength, from personal living to community involvement to personally confronting and challenging the industrial, corporate and political system. For example, laws about energy use that have at least a saner direction are being written in Washington now — go and engage your President and representatives to make them much stronger; enough to actually protect the planet right down to the land where you live. As Wendell Barry says, “You cannot regulate an abomination.”
Jensen’s last paragraph takes my breath away. His anger at human culture which he and presumeably other readers are part rings true. We are indeed the problem. The culture of ravaging the earth and its many species.
The simplicity movement is just as radical and credible as destroying dams, roads and bulldoziers. Lessening the footprint impact of the individual, decreasing consumption and energy use, limiting population growth, writing comments, questioning the treatment of forests, attending city meetings, stopping roads built for the pleasure of engineers and the trucking lobby. All these measures work together. We are indeed in a deep and ugly hole. We are indeed a destructive species. Individuals must be educated and empowered to intitate change.
I appreciate Jensens whisper to action. He has heard the forests calling….
A Language Older than Words is one of the most beautiful and painful books I’ve ever read. I think the real question Derrick is asking most of the time is: How do we value life? It’s hard to put in a column the kind of meditative thought Derrick puts in his books. But maybe he should try.
Fascinating and important, although a large question is just how we are to “hear” the land. I asked my back yard what it wanted me to do and, even though I’ve got a touch of a mystic streak, I couldn’t hear anything.
I know Jensen believes our associates in creation speak to us, and he may be right. But if the ultimate point of his piece was that we must have the guts to do what the land says, how do we know what it says? Anybody know? And if he says “by any means necessary” what if the land says, no, not by “any” means? Perhaps it might say we’ve had enough violence already…
One commenter suggests that it will speak to her, “for me.” Will her land say something different than my land? Than Jensen’s land? This could get complicated, eh?
I appreciate the deep ecology of this, and want to believe we can discern some insight from listening well. Perhaps I’m tone-deaf. Or is this just gnostic nonsense that can’t be critiqued reasonably? That is, if he says the land told him to blow up a dam, who is anybody to argue? Heck, I could justify nearly anything if I get my marching orders from listening to the dirt.
We’ve got an epidemic of Lyme carrying deer tics near us here, in the local land— partially a result of terrible suburban sprawl. Still, they are in the neighborhood now, too. Should I ask them what they think, even as they ruin the health of loved ones? Or if I ask them to get the hell out, will they listen?
Some who have commented have affirmed Jensen’s hearing the whispers of the forest. This is fine poetry, good metaphor, if that is what we mean. Our strategy must be argued amongst our neighbors in the public square, though…can this stuff possible ring true to others, this peculiar Dr. Doolittle approach that insists that “nothing else” matters? I’m perplexed.
I agree that the suggestion of listening to the land is cryptic. I haven’t read anything else by Jensen, so I don’t know what he really means. I do know that he interviewed Martin Prechtel, a few years ago in the Sun, and Martin’s explanations of the Mayan culture that he was a part of in Guatemala, begin to tell us what Derrick SHOULD be meaning when he tells us to listen to the land. Where industrial civilization went wrong is in forgetting that our existence here puts us in debt to the spirits that make us live, and so we think we can take endlessly without giving back. There is something greater than ourselves, that makes this all happen, and which knows what we must do to keep in balance with the whole. Every indigenous culture I am aware of had this understanding of the greater thing to which we must be held accountable. That is what kept them from becoming the cancerous growth that our empty “culture” has become. If we wake up to this, and remember how to listen, so that we can learn what is required in terms of giving back, we have a chance of keeping this life alive. Here is the link to the interview with Martin Prechtel that Jensen did in 2001. http://www.hiddenwine.com/indexSUN.html
I looked through Jensen’s article and through the comments to see if ayone would proffer a correction to his correction, but no.
So here goes: Jensen says this culture needs to stop killing the planet. In a way his statement presumes we’re separate from nature. We’re not. We ARE nature. Nature has always killed its own kind.
So the planet will go on and heal itself over the years, probably by killing us off. It’s us humans who just might go extinct–we’ve been declared an endangered species. We’re killing ourselves, nature turning in on itself.
This culture–over the last 50K years–has done that. Ever since we were able to use finer tools, such as bone, we could make close-fitting garments and get into colder climes, and thus go further away from Africa.
Ever since that time, whenever humankind has set foot on a new continent for the first time, the megafauna have been killed off within a few thousand years.
Now there’s no other planet to get to.
I agree with the first poster (Carol H), in that I often have very mixed feelings and responses when reading Derrick Jensen. I am in agreement on a deep level, so there is a sort of ‘hum’ of resonance and relief at someone articulating these ideas. And then there is a sense of unsettled, uneasiness. There is something unabashedly aggressive in these writings. That tends to put me off.
And yet, I think Jensen is expressing what most of us don’t want to, or can’t. What is happening – and has been happening at least since industrialization has become the dominant mode of practice – IS unacceptable, IS genocidal, IS violent and sinful (paraphrasing the excellent Alexander Wilson’s Culture of Nature). And we need to tackle this directly, including our complicity. But it’s more than that. It’s about shifting the very frames and discourses we are embedded in, that enable industry and exploitation to continue. Jensen points out how it’s become seeded into our very questions, the way this ideology is threaded into our very language and ways of seeing. So what is called for IS radical and revolutionary.
I only wish there was more suggestion of creative ways of responding, rather than hinting and hoping we will get what they may be. Not that we need Jensen to tell us what to do, but its evident his ideas can be interpreted as quite violent acts. I want to channel my rage and sense of injustice into ways that are dismantling, but I don’t know how. And I am not ready to ‘shoot’ the perpetrators. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the language Jensen uses tends to be very violent. What we encounter against species and ecosystems ruined and destroyed because of our rampant greed is violent; but I don’t want to be pulled into a way of life coloured by rage, and violence. Maybe this makes me a patsy, a wimp. Who knows. But I want us to think about creative channels for using our rage and anger, without being drawn into replicating violent acts.
Jensen is exactly right that we are asking the wrong questions (because we ask from a selfish, anthropocentric perspective). For eons, human creatures understood that they were but one small strand in the Web-Of-Life. It is our relatively recent (and deranged) view that we are its Lords and Masters that is the root of today’s ecological dysfunction.
However, Jensen’s antidote is every bit as naive (though well-intentioned) as the comments of some of his critics (as posted here).
As soon as one says “by any means necessary”, it becomes clear that person has gone over to the dark side. No one can be blamed for self-defense or the defense of one’s family (however broadly that is defined). But to engage in deliberate offensive action against a perceived adversary is to indulge in the same criminality that one pretends to oppose.
On a Jensen fan club discussion forum, I was brutally trashed for suggesting that Jensen’s understanding of non-violence was limited (at best).
To be responsible members of the Web-Of-Life, we must all be willing to give our lives to protect and defend it. But to take lives for It’s sake would be the very same desecration that we should be striving to thwart (and no different from the Crusades or Islamic fanaticism).
Jensen is a brilliant thinker, engaging writer, and a good soul who is willing to let his desperation inspire his action. That is never a good thing.
It would be helpful–or at least honest–if Derrick Jensen mentioned that he published a book last year called “How Shall I Live My Life?” I don’t know whether this column grows out of or turns away from that project, but it strikes me as relevant for his readers to know.
If his proposal to listen to the land plays out anything like his descriptions of listening to his chickens in A Language Older Than Words (where he insists that the chickens WANT him to kill and eat them), the project he proposes has little to offer.
In psychology there’s a word called “projection”…
I have a problem with the concept of acting “by any means necessary.” This suggests Mr. Jensen believes that the “problem” is already clearly defined and it is simply a matter of acting to address the problem…in reality it is not so cut and dried or obvious what the real problems are.
It is fine to decry the current culture and its impacts on Nature (as though Nature was somehow pristine and perfect before humanity), but what alternative does Mr. Jensen offer?
Listening to the land is wisdom for nomadic societies, hunter-gatherers, and the agriculturally based. But it is of questionable value for folks already in urban settings.
If Mr. Jensen wants to call us to more responsible stewardship, he needs to get significantly more detailed, more thoughtful, and more practical.
Thoughts?
Eschew “real solutions” please. My gut is that social planning got us into the mess as it did in the early part of the last century. There is an assertion that only war(number 2) got us out but look where that got us.
Be wary of large scale solutions.
Jamie (Poster #20) makes an excellent point: large scale solutions are frequently more problematic than salutary. I understand the scalar argument – if it works well here in a snall case, then it should be easy enough to scale up for state/regional/national/interna-
tional application, but that is not the case. Think global, live local, and expect the unexpected…
Does this guy live in the real world? Most people cannot sustain the adrenaline that it takes to throw a psychopath out of the house and will return, thankfully and peacefully, to living as though the world was not in dire straits. Of course, it is, but it is crippling to focus on that 24/7. We are only human and do not have the capacity to face reality all day every day.
I just finished reading an article about the need for more toilets in the world. According to this article, there are 2.6 billion people in the world who DO NOT have any type of toilet at this point, and they are adding 3.12 TRILLION tons of untreated human waste to the environment annually, which pollutes the water supply and who knows what else. Even those of us who have toilets must realize on some level that our wastes also create problems. And if I ask the world if it needs any more of this, I’m sure it would answer with a resounding NO. However, that still leaves it up to us to figure out how to handle all of this waste.
Also, have you noticed that even “green” publications continue to advertise more and better stuff for sale all the time, as we hear constant talk about “growing” the economy. The big question that no one seems to want to consider is how are we going to STOP extracting all of the finite resources of the world to feed today’s hunger for consumption of everything in sight. People will gladly change a few lightbulbs if doing so absolves them of the responsibility of confronting the fact that ENORMOUS changes in “lifestyle” will be necessary to deal with what is required to maintain some sort of ecological balance. I cannot believe anyone who says this is not so. And until that issue is confronted in a serious way, no one will really be hearing what the “earth wants”.
So I agree with the writers who are frustrated by beautiful thoughts written in beautiful articles which still find a way to dance, albeit beautifully, around the fact that you have to convince millions of very indulged people here in the U.S. to agree to some serious downsizing and to elect leaders who will make sure it happens. And fast…..
Can this be done?
And note that this doesn’t begin to address the problems of all those billions who don’t even have toilets…..
I was thrilled to see that Derrick Jensen is to have a regular column in Orion. I don’t believe his “by any means necessary” means killing but I do believe he means nonviolent civil disobedience, which (to some including in India) can mean destruction of property (not people!). Personally I’m not going to go out and destroy the numerous developments happening where I live, though I would be happy if someone did. Because they are a manifestation of our current mindless culture that doesn’t understand or see or feel the spirit in the land or in anything else, for that matter. Money is what means something to way too many people in this culture. This is anti-nature as well as anti-human. I, too, am a writer and try and use my skills, such as they are, to open people to a more participatory relationship with the Earth, whatever that means for them. To listen to the land is, in actuality, deep listening to the spirits of all that lives in a place. And each of us is “hardwired” (because we are human, because we are part of the whole) to hear these voices. But each in our own way. Sometimes the land (or trees or rivers or mountains) does speak in words very clearly. Most times it’s more of a sense, a yearning, a compulsion to do something, to act in a particular way (or to not act in a particular way). The reciprocity that Native people understood to me feels like love flowing back and forth and within that love lies some questions and perhaps some answers. And sometimes there’s just an overwhelming feeling that fills me up and makes me cry for no reason. What I do with all of this is my choice. I can write about it (which I do sometimes), I can get my hands in the dirt and marvel at even the simplest of creatures, or I can stand there and let the tears flow and know that somehow this too matters in the larger, grand scheme of things. Because an open heart, a heart open to the beauty of this Earth and the pain of what we are doing to the Earth is the beginning. We have to feel. And we should share our stories and believe that we can have an impact despite the hugeness and overwhelmingness of our times and what we are facing. It’s hard to say: This is what we should be doing because each of us is unique, each of us came here with a purpose and a gift to give. It’s fuzzy and it changes sometimes from day to day. What remains constant is the life of the Earth which, as some have pointed out, will continue to live on long after we’re gone. (Check out the movie, I think it’s called “Life After People”). Will humans continue on? Who knows. Perhaps. That all depends on what we do, or don’t do, now. I believe our purpose is to continue the evolutionary process as partners with Earth, and that we have what it takes to do this. But we need to recognize that it’s not just up to us, that “listening to the land” may be metaphor, but a metaphor for action in the context of the whole. I know. It’s still fuzzy. Words are inadequate. They run around the essense, trying to define it like a drawing on blank paper defines the spaces within lines.
As another poster who’s read Jensen previously, I can also state that his “by any means necessary” involves violence. I don’t agree with him on this, but I do appreciate the analogy of the maniac killing our loved ones.
However, I don’t think most people would go after the maniac themselves with a club, which is what he seems to suggest. They’d call 911. They’d run screaming into the street and bang on a neighbour’s door. They’d freeze. The idea that if only we’d all agree on what kind of situation this is that we’d all then agree on the only possible answer is not true.
I did love the piece, though. I do listen to the land, and it gives me different answers than Jensen gets (yep, projection), but at the very least moving away from “how shall I live my life?” is a good thing.
I think the analogy of a psychotic killing our loved ones only goes so far. While I get we need to see our non-human cohabitants as members of our family/community and need to feel outrage at their/our destruction, the problem with the analogy concerns 1) who is the killer, and 2) to what ends is the killing happening. The analogy actually glosses over the ideological power that runs through our global/capitalist/industrial systems, and that in fact this is seen to be as doing ‘good’ usually for someone in particular. Whereas the psychotic killer shooting our loved ones is irrational, makes no sense, is incoherent, what we are dealing with is in our very own histories. It requires looking at ourselves, our social and cultural histories and interrogating this on the deepest possible levels. And yes, saying no, putting our refusal to participate into action. But I actually feel the language (‘barrel of a gun’, ‘shooting’) sort of misses the complexity of industrial processes that cause such violence to the land and its creatures.
Get real, Jensen. Poetic writing, to be sure, but hardly helpful. Yes, “exactly what” does he suggest?
I suspect that Orion talkls only to the folks that aren’t the problem anyway.
You, and I, and Jensen, can’t be the problem… can we?
After I took the time to “talk to the earth” I have come up with a couple of ideas for me to pursue. That includes participating in the next Intention Experiment for clean water. Maybe it would be choice for others too. http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/
I have great faith that Planet Earth will be able to cleanse itself of the human virus and of all the trash that humans will leave behind. Humanity has failed its Mother and does not deserve to share in her bounty. Vile humanity and the evil capitalism will consume themselves at the altar of the infinite.
How should you live your life? Does it matter?
24 Susan Meeker-Lowry on May 22, 2009 wrote:
.. I don’t believe his “by any means necessary” means killing but I do believe he means nonviolent civil disobedience, which (to some including in India) can mean destruction of property (not people!).
—–
There is a very simple way for a writer to indicate exactly what he means: by saying so. Jensen’s crytic references suggest that he means something besides Ghandi’s civil disobedience. Tree-spiking and arson are illegal, immoral and dead-bang losers as tactics to advance a cause. If he means something else, he has an easy way to clarify his intentions.
I know I’m opening up a can of worms here, but when it comes to the Earth there are those of us for whom the killing and destruction of habitats and creatures in the name of profit and more “stuff” is just personally, viscerally painful. I am fortunate not to have experienced the death of any of my children but I have lost my parents (my mother at a young age) and grandparents. And the pain I felt at witnessing my first clearcut out west, the devastation caused by oil spills, the knowledge of all the plastic crap in the oceans, poisoning and killing fish and birds and turtles sometimes slowly, agonizingly, hurts and it’s hard to differenciate at times. It all touches the same place in my heart and spirit. (Losing a child, nothing could compare with that so I can’t even go there). What I’m trying to say is the wanton destruction of Gaia hurts me personally. It’s not that way for everyone, even for everyone who cares. For some it’s rather intellectual. The knowing doesn’t impact their every day lives, they may not even think of it every day. For me, climate change especially is present in my consciousness in every moment, like the fact of my being a mother is there in every moment. The question is: What would I do to defend my children? And can I do less when it comes to my home place?
Of course in day-to-day reality I make choices and some of them aren’t ideal. So Gerry, yes we are the problem, even those of us who read Orion. It’s impossible to live a perfect, Earth-friendly life in this day and age when we must participate in society, work, pay bills, eat, get from point A to point B (and no public transportation where I live). I think this is part of what hurts so much, at least for me. I live with my disabled sister who resists change like it’s going to kill her, who is very “middle class” in her wants and values. And the nature of her brain injury means she is stuck there, for the most part and I end up dragging her into change sometimes kicking and screaming. But this is my challenge which it behooves me not to resent.
Renee, I guess we need to redefine “good” so that the psychotic killing of the Earth can be seen for what it is: murder, not doing good for anyone or anything.
I read Orion every month word for word, cover to cover. But my long time partner/soon to be husband skims, he can’t be bothered to turn away from reading old VW car manuals to absorb the messages from each piece. Except for this article. Jensen’s marvelous and provocative work tapped something deep and emotional in the man I love, and in my surprise and wonder to his reaction, I am learning even more about how each of us sees the world.
5/22/2009 12:01:35 PM: I guess I am finally reluctant to blame anyone that much, for the current condition of the planet. As I see it, we were born with innate desires to live, reproduce, stay warm, comfortable, well enough fed, connect with others socially, and, yes, express love.
As with most animal life, we were born to take the easy way out because our bodies are naturally designed to conserve energy for when it is needed, either to escape harm, chase down dinner, or numerous other tasks of survival.
And, through millions of years of evolution, we seem to deal best with what is in our immediate surroundings, not what impact we might have that is beyond our gaze.
Put all this together, and we have become wildly successful at satisfying our desires. Our propensity to conserve energy evolved into the technology of ‘labor saving’ devices, powered by energy not from our muscles. Our influence has extended well beyond our sight or reach; our “out of sight, out of mind” nature has left us typically unaware of the damage we are doing remotely. Switch on a light in my kitchen and a giant machine hundreds of miles away rips away at a seam of coal to make it possible. The evidence of the damage I am doing with that light switch is well removed from my daily experience.
After seeing thousands of messages from all quarters extolling me to change my light bulbs, drive fewer miles, seal leaks in my house, etc., I finally stopped and asked myself, where are the “thank you”s? Where is the forgiveness? Where is the invitation to accept ourselves and our failings? Is it possible to invite each other to respond to our planet’s “crisis” through the expression of love and support and caring instead of guilt and shame and fear?
In other words, in order to listen to the land, perhaps we first have the challenge to listen to ourselves, and to each other.
At the same time, I think of the homeless woman, living in a hotel room with her son, that I saw on the news last night. Perhaps 100% of her mental energy is spent just trying to find work, make meals with the few dollars they have, and grab a few hours of sleep before starting all over again the next morning. Does she have time to listen to the land? I would certainly forgive her for not doing so, at least not now. I hope she can forgive herself when she reads messages urging her to ‘save’ the environment.
Yes, there is a world of hurt out there. My hope is that we can move forward in healing that hurt instead of making more. (more thoughts at http://www.energystories.org)
Susan, I am with you. And this is how it is for me as well, a visceral pain. And the fact we must participate in this to some degree is very distressing for me.
What I mean is this: that there is a “logic” to our practices so those we deem as the “perpetrators” are most likely seeing what they do as “good” for someone or themselves. not that it is inherently “good” – that is not at all what I meant. Further we must stop seeing destruction as “out there” but rather its a way of life each one of us is involved in. Its how we intervene and produce radical interventions which is what we can do within our realms of influence and agency and power. A lot of these issues are of course about power. I just needed to clarify where I was coming from. Comparing ecological destruction to a murderer breaking into your house and killing one’s family on one level speaks to the emotional truth of the situation, and on another level obscures something vital, which is how our practices fit into existing ideological frameworks for some (eg those in power)in which the practices are acceptable.
I don’t know whether to write “this article was a catalyst for me” or “this article was the last straw”. Reading these comments after the article was helpful, but not conclusive.
I’m afraid that I keep returning to the same criticism of Jensen: “Nice foreplay, but ….” As the comments raise the point, “do exactly what?”.
Anyway, I did find that the article pushed me off the fence. (Hooray for Derrick, and good on Orion for giving him a column!) I keep returning to an old quote I used to finish off my own impotent rants with, paraphrased here:
“The Earth is not dying – she is being killed. And those who are killing her have names and addresses.” -Utah Phillips
And that’s where I personally end up. We all know what must be done, we are just unable or unwilling to do it. Walmarts must be dismantled, logging equipment must be disabled, drilling rigs must be destroyed, rapacious global capitalists must be taught the lesson that their behavior is now prohibited, and consequences must be visited upon them. … and on and on. … and those’r just the first steps.
That’s how you must live your life. You live in ‘interesting times’ you are called upon to do what is necessary – ‘by any means necessary’ – and quit simply talking about it. That’s the challenge of your lives. Or simply watch the Earth die for awhile.
Here’s another quote, just for reinforcement, “If you can’t even manage to force your own presumably democratic
governments to allow you to do good things for yourselves, then you probably
deserve to become extinct.”—Ishmael/Daniel Quinn
If you are too passive, or too scared or unable to give up your current lifestyle, perhaps a re-dedication to both ‘resistance’ and support of those who are willing to take ‘direct action’ would be the answer for you as to ‘how to live your lives’.
I’m always searching in history for parallels. What did Gandhi/Jesus/Lenin/Geo. Washington/Tecumseh/, et al. … what did THEY do? They quit talking around the problem, organized and they acted. Uncomfortable action, law-breaking action, violent and non-violent action. Incomplete action, but successful action.
So I say as I have said for awhile now, “If you’re serious, get back to me when you are actually willing to blow up a dam or pull down a cell tower, organize a strike or a revolution, … or can hook us up with those willing to do those things, and the other things it takes to stop them/us.” Get back to me when you’re willing to live your life that way.
Full circle for me, I guess, folks, for I truly end up not with the Utah Phillips quote, but another quote.
“How can we expect to stop them by emulating those that have been destroyed?” – The Holeyman
Howdie, Tom, and happy birthday. I like running into in these virtual modes of communication. I agree with everything you say. It’s good to hear the truth, as uncomfortable as it may be. That’s why I look up to you. I hope that we can see each other soon.
Tom–can you explain why you think saying you’re “willing to blow up a dam or pull down a cell tower, organize a strike or a revolution” counts as “serious”? Such actions strike me as dramatic, but not serious. To me, “serious” means being responsible for what happens next–how the story goes on.
Wow. There was a time when human survival and human life itself was the aim of society. Whether any of you want to believe it or not, capitalism, burning fossil fuels, and technology have brought us to a point where you can sit around and drink soy milk while typing on your laptops and ponder questions like this. I’m aware that primitive cultures who didn’t respect the environment failed, as I know some of you will argue, however, it is a matter of degree. We have come to a point where we can actually be concerned with these issues without having worry about surviving another year. Violence, environmental totalitarianism and extremism will not be excused by future generations just because some endangered species survive or we succeed in reducing the amount of plant-breathing CO2 in the air. You people are nuts.
5/22/2009 12:01:35 PM: I guess I am finally reluctant to blame anyone that much, for the current condition of the planet. As I see it, we were born with innate desires to live, reproduce, stay warm, comfortable, well enough fed, connect with others socially, and, yes, express love.
As with most animal life, we were born to take the easy way out because our bodies are naturally designed to conserve energy for when it is needed, either to escape harm, chase down dinner, or numerous other tasks of survival.
And, through millions of years of evolution, we seem to deal best with what is in our immediate surroundings, not what impact we might have that is beyond our gaze.
Put all this together, and we have become wildly successful at satisfying our desires. Our propensity to conserve energy evolved into the technology of ‘labor saving’ devices, powered by energy not from our muscles. Our influence has extended well beyond our sight or reach; our “out of sight, out of mind” nature has left us typically unaware of the damage we are doing remotely. Switch on a light in my kitchen and a giant machine hundreds of miles away rips away at a seam of coal to make it possible. The evidence of the damage I am doing with that light switch is well removed from my daily experience.
After seeing thousands of messages from all quarters extolling me to change my light bulbs, drive fewer miles, seal leaks in my house, etc., I finally stopped and asked myself, where are the “thank you”s? Where is the forgiveness? Where is the invitation to accept ourselves and our failings? Is it possible to invite each other to respond to our planet’s “crisis” through the expression of love and support and caring instead of guilt and shame and fear?
In other words, in order to listen to the land, perhaps we first have the challenge to listen to ourselves, and to each other.
At the same time, I think of the homeless woman, living in a hotel room with her son, that I saw on the news last night. Perhaps 100% of her mental energy is spent just trying to find work, make meals with the few dollars they have, and grab a few hours of sleep before starting all over again the next morning. Does she have time to listen to the land? I would certainly forgive her for not doing so, at least not now. I hope she can forgive herself when she reads messages urging her to ‘save’ the environment.
Yes, there is a world of hurt out there. My hope is that we can move forward in healing that hurt instead of making more.
In comment #36 Rick Livingston asks:
“Tom—can you explain why you think saying you’re “willing to blow up a dam or pull down a cell tower, organize a strike or a revolution” counts as “serious”?
Rick I suggest you read Derrick Jensen’s “endgame” as to what’s serious about dams and cell towers. I was simply borrowing his framing to comment.
And I would be disturbed if you REALLY thought strikes and revolutions are “not serious”.
Often those involved in strikes and revolutions are in fact assuming responsibility for “what comes next”, n’est-ce pas?
Howabout if I prefaced those suggestions to blow cell towers and dams and dismantle, disable, etc. with “Obtain Court Orders to …”?
Would that placate you? Would that be responsible enough for you?
I agree with Susan. In order to change anything about ourselves, we have to care. In order to care about anything, we have to allow ourselves to feel. So first comes learning how to feel.
Sometimes the grief for what we have done is so enormous I wonder whether we are big enough to do it all. But if we keep on running from it, we will keep on doing more harm because we are too afraid to look at what we have done.
I disagree with Tom that taking down cell towers or dams is really helpful. First of all, the dams and cell phone towers are manifestations of what we believe about ourselves in relation to the world. We can take away the symptoms, but until we are able to change our beliefs, we are fighting a losing battle. In fact, my sense is that resistance and violence only sets up stronger efforts to maintain the old ways of believing.
Thinking that taking down cell phone towers that are already up is a way of healing the earth, is not so different from thinking that killing the person who killed my brother will bring my brother back.
Resisting old ways is not the same as creating new ones. In my own life, I feel much more useful, and powerful, putting my energy into creating new ways of being in the world, (which are really, as Martin Prechtel says, just new sap in an old root) than trying to stop the old ways from destroying the world.
I agree that “how do I live my life” is not really the root question we should be asking. Maybe a better question would be, “what do I believe.” Change that, and the rest changes automatically.
blow dams and phone towers in sudan, please….there’s a threshold in the conversations that it’s not crossed over and that is how this thought of “saving the planet” has come again to americans as a mandate, like the wars all over the world for the last century. Yet, I haven’t heard of any american getting rid of his car or moving to a denser neighborhood; putting action to the words, I would start (as some already have) at elementary school, and show kids we all are one and the same, and if we don’t work to end poverty, environmental issues are just a nice marketing tool for carmakers and architects.
I am a grandfather. When I hold the hand of my two year old Olivia and caution her to look both ways before crossing the (neighborhood cul-de-sac) street with me, I am introducing the first lesson toward a skill we all must master – risk aversion. At age two she doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “danger”. Her whole life up until now has been free of such experience. If she matures normally she will learn to anticipate – cars, trucks, motorcycles, skateboards – things that could swoop down the street and collide with her small body. I do not and will never teach her to anticipate other potential dangers while crossing the street – falling asteroids, jet liners piloted by crazy people, fissures in the street opened by earthquakes, or tsunamis. Though each of these events has some actuarial risk greater than zero, a life lived in fear of them is paranoid, full of worry and incapable of the everyday joys that make life worthwhile. Few of us reading this issue of Orion have lost our families and homes due to war, earthquakes or hurricanes. As a result we do not factor these risks into our day-to-day perception of reality. Comment # 22 said “We are only human and do not have the capacity to face reality all day every day.”
Unfortunately, this leaves us all with large blind spots. My generation learned American History and civics in the 1950s. The idea that the President and Vice President of the United States would establish torture and extraordinary rendition as a policy, totally abrogate the habeus corpus provision of the U.S. Constitution, conduct warrantless surveillance of telephone and internet communications of its own citizens, or lie to the nation to wage undeclared war against countries because of their oil deposits was inconceivable. How do we protect ourselves from the inconceivable when the inconceivable becomes inescapable?
Comment # 30 said “It’s about shifting the very frames … we are embedded in.” Each of us experiences reality as a function of our perspective or as a result of the “framing” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_frame) associated with our experiences. If we see the United States as the “land of the free and home of the brave” or as the birthplace of democracy it becomes very difficult to reconcile that “frame” with the performance of the previous presidency. If we look both ways in search of oncoming traffic before crossing a street, how do we protect ourselves from airborne hazards? We are all crippled by the narrowness of our own experience.
I grew up on the Gulf Coast (Mobile, Alabama and the Gulf of Mexico) where hurricanes are to summer as tornadoes are to Kansans. Believe me when I say that unless you have personally witnessed flagpoles bent parallel to the ground by such winds or seen vast sections of brick wall blown off downtown skyscrapers you cannot imagine what a hurricane can do. Every time one makes landfall I stare in disbelief at television coverage of people who decide to “ride it out” – poster children for the word “clueless”. Living just up the coast from New Orleans we all knew that the Big Easy was below sea level and protected only by dikes. We had witnessed Hurricane Camille 36 years earlier hit the Mississippi coast and reduce its buildings to concrete slabs, removing even the tiles glued to the surface of those slabs. So I watched weather reports on television in August 2005 and thought what is wrong with those people? Don’t they get it? I remember watching one clip of a homeowner frantically repairing the roofing on his home to protect his interior from water damage. A few days later that building and all its neighbors no longer existed. How do we protect ourselves from danger we have never experienced and cannot anticipate?
The most effective solutions address causes rather than symptoms. Derrick Jensen is uncommon largely because he has examined the symptoms and gone further than most at identifying a cause. The cause he has identified is outside the wildest imagination of the most paranoid. With the current state of the biosphere, organizing recycling drives, writing letters to Congress, and picketing industrial polluters (each worthy of commendation, each wonderful personal disciplines) promise the same results as hammering down loose shingles while Katrina approaches. Derrick is standing on the street outside this beach house frantically waving his arms, pointing seaward and screaming about 30 foot tidal surges.
If you find him vague about recommendations it may be that his solutions are certain to be illegal in a “justice” system designed to protect itself from accusation and assault.
Derrick sees, not the future, but current reality in a way few of the rest of us are prepared to accept. Even the most sanguine projections are full of dire prediction, while we are unable to see what stares at us eye-to-eye. His vision has made him a radical activist. His reasoning is unassailable; it is his premises we cannot accept.
Painful though it may be, it is we who must “grow up” while it is still possible for any of us to “grow” at all.
Stop making babies!
There are too many of us, and the more there are, the more authoritarian the world becomes.
There is a way to do that, and it has nothing to do with laws.
When women take it upon themselves to decide to have only the children they want, what really happens is that they have only 2, 1 or none. I have studied this phenomenon for 35 years.
So how do they do that without pharmaceutical hormones or other “contraceptive methods”? They must understand their bodies so well that they know, ahead of time each month, when they will be fertile. Then they can decide what to do about it.
There are several books on this concept. They are available. You can get my own through my website, http://www.lunaception.net. You can also get Katie Singer’s book THE GARDEN OF FERTILITY and there are others, too.
So who are these women who make that decision? First of all, they have become empower. Having babies is no longer a mystery. They know when and what to do about it. Also, they don’t listen to religious figures (always men), nor to their partners (usually men) who tell them to keep having babies, keep having babies, keep….
They decide.
In just a few generations our population will be reduced to 20 or 30%. Is that too few people? Look at the figures. Our planetary population has doubled in 50 years.
And our environmental problems will decline with it. Is that too late? Perhaps. But there isn’t any other way to do this.
It’s not just about not making more babies, though population is obviously a serious issue. Right now there are so many people who need jobs and more young people entering the workforce. It’s mindboggling. And too many current jobs are inherently destructive of the Earth or rely on inherently destructive processes (working as a clerk at WalMart for example). If we don’t take down celltowers, perhaps we could refrain from putting up more. Same with roads and certain kinds of housing developments and all shopping malls, etc. But no. Even in this economy it is deemed necessary and “good” to cut more trees to build more unsellable houses, to destroy open fields to build discount stores and huge parking lots. Really it’s absurd given reality and it’s hard for me to swallow.
Yes, Jensen sees reality. So do I and it’s hard. I just received a beautiful picture today of my 3 week old grandaughter. Sleeping peacefully in her father’s arms with no clue as to the world she now inhabits. Innocent. Pure. And what will her future be? Will she even have one?
The world I see today out my windows, mountains, blue sky, snow in winter, apple blossoms now, brilliant color in fall, maple trees tapped in spring, these will soon be relegated to memories of times long gone. Like that Tim Hardin song, “Whose Garden Was This?” It must have been lovely. Remember that song? From the moment I heard it way back when I knew it was the future. I could feel the pain of losing all this beauty. And that was before anyone (or anyone I knew anyway) had a clue. A part of me has always known and known that I would live long enough to see it. I’m sure Jensen knew too, and probably many of you all commenting on this article.
As someone already said, to change the way things are we need to change how we preceive the world and our relationship to it. As Thomas Berry said, we need to reinvent the human at the species level. This is our work, the work we were born to do.
I’m one of those who finds what is being done to the natural world personally and extremely painful.
I loathe the civilization I’m part of, but can’t deny that I’m a product of it. I’ve chosen to live very simply compared to the average Westerner, but have taken quizzes showing that if everyone lived like me, we’d still need two or three planets. So I know simple living under the present circumstances isn’t the solution.
I have no problem with what ELF and ALF do; for the most part I admire them as individuals. You could sign me up for armed resistance if I thought that would do a bit of long-term good, but other than burning off some of our individual rage and pain and frustration, it won’t. As someone wrote, we’re outgunned and outnumbered. There aren’t enough guerrillas to make a difference, but bravo for their actions.
Certainly nothing is going to be solved by political processes–not if you understand the scope of the changes that are necessary.
If we put away rose-colored glasses and wishful thinking, the only true solutions are the collapse of industrialism and billions fewer people. I believe that’s already started and will lead to a better world for all the species which survive long enough to make it to the other side. Until then I just ride out my life trying to save an animal or a place when the opportunity permits.
If you are really “worried” about todays’ culture, ie:current inhabitants of Washington, pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged, and see where we are headed.
And skip al the platitudes and mea culpas.
Hooray for you, Derrick, for pissing off us liberals better than anyone has since Sherman Alexie. I hope you’re well. We miss you in Spokane.
Tom says: “And I would be disturbed if you REALLY thought strikes and revolutions are “not serious”.
Often those involved in strikes and revolutions are in fact assuming responsibility for “what comes next”, n’est-ce pas?”
We both know there’s a big difference between saying the words “strike” and “revolution” and doing the work. The words appeal to fantasies about stopping the world in its tracks; the work is about figuring out how we can power down without hurting each other–and the world–too much.
Resentment, rage and despair are constant companions on this journey. It’s tempting to feed them, hoping we can tap into their strength. But what they feed on most is us. When I listen to Derrick, I’m not sure whose voice I’m hearing.
If you can get court orders to remove dams and take down cell towers, more power to you.
Your analysis of the problem is right on. Your suggested solution is… uh…what? As a prior commenter noted, violence would be absurd; the other side has more and bigger guns. So how about writing another column proposing specific measures — as radical as you wish — and strategies for achieving them. Don’t just stamp your feet. Point the way.
Despite the arguments about what tactics Derrick Jensen is suggesting, an important point has been overlooked: changing the question from a focus on individual action to collective action. Our culture emphasizes individualism; he suggests corporate action. If we simply change the question from “What can I do?” to “What can WE do?”, we will be pointed in better and more effective actions, whether those actions are within neighborhoods, congregations, non-profit organizations, schools, or governments.
Thank you Derrick for a great commentary on the current situation. Listening to the land is not cryptic like some of these commenters suggest, it is easy and necessary. It’s the only thing we can do. What is needed is different in every location that is why he can’t “tell you” what to do. You need to get out there and figure it out yourself based on where you are and who you are. People often want others to tell them what to do or they want to join a group that is “doing something” or want to do something others think is impressive, so they go somewhere to engage in a dramatic action. These actions can be admirable too but the actions right in your own place are most effective because they stem from a deep knowing of what is really needed there. And if you don’t have a deep knowing of your place, well that is a problem too isn’t it? I think Jensen scorns many ideas not because they are always invalid but because they are not blanket answers so you can’t really use them as a final solution. You really need to see what is needed right where you are. For example, in our community here, we need to protect a huge wetland marsh and the air we breathe from an asphalt plant. Derrick Jensen can’t tell me to work on that, it’s something I need to discover right here, and to be most effective, I need to use my particular talents to work on preventing that plant from being built. That too is something no one can tell you to do, you have your own unique piece of the puzzle. It is a little like asking “how do I live my life right now?”, but it isn’t about YOU. It is about interconnectedness, all fulfilling their potential and actually surviving to keep fulfilling it.
I could only believe Jensen’s writing is “almost misanthropic,” as one commenter put it, if I believed humanity is separate from nature. In drawing our attention to what we are doing that is destructive to the biosphere, Jensen is saying that we are acting outside our ecological limits, not that we do not belong in the biosphere at all. *We* are the ones pretending we don’t belong here. *He* is merely pointing that out.
As for those who disagree with his statement that we’re killing the earth, I don’t think he’s referring to the entire planet–magma, rock layers, continents and all. I think he’s referring to the biosphere. And that we *are* in danger of killing–if not completely, than enough that we’ll kill ourselves too. If knowing that we took lots and lots of other living things along with us when we had no right to drive them to extinction isn’t enough, I should think knowing that we could destroy ourselves would be enough to prompt us to take action.
I have little respect for those who say that ELF-type actions are wrong. What’s the alternative? Raising awareness hasn’t worked. Too many people are invested in the system as it is–or they think they are. Not that I want to be the one to take the action, because I have too much to lose. But I’m not going to get in the way of those who are actually going out there and doing something, either, because somebody has to.
Being “peaceful” and being “nice” and remaining seated and quiet through all the atrocities has done nothing but give the biosphere-killers and the despoilers of nature (even of humanity) free rein to do whatever they want. Why do we keep doing it?
I look at the human inhabitants of this globe and I can not find any hope for us. We are a cancer and it will consume the earth if her immune system does not kill us first.
I look at the teaming billions, each taking a bite out of the earth’s flesh. We are consuming our home, we are shitting in our living rooms.
The sad thing is that the death of the human species would be the best thing that could happen for the rest of the earths inhabitants..
Not that we actually have to commit mass suicide, the earth will shed us sooner or later.
This is a wonderful discussion and will serve as the inspiration for my column this week in my local paper (and I’ve been needing inspiration, so thanks!). I actually clicked here this AM because of a comment that no longer seems to be posted about how awful “our generation” as been for the Earth. Not sure which generation is being referred to since there are probably two or three actually represented in the comments, but since I’m in my late 50s I assume that’s the one. The thing is, I don’t think we can blame one generation for a perspective and mind set that began way before any of us were born. The rugged individualism, the capitalist system, the profit-bottom-line thinking that is the be all, end all of what happens and what doesn’t – this started long ago and it is so entrenched in our so-called culture that blaming a single generation for the results of it makes no sense. I could look back at my parent’s generation and say they started it all. Not my family personally, my father knew what was happening to the Earth and cared passionately about it, teaching me to think differently than most people could even imagine way back when. For which I am grateful. Still, it’s a mindset that has become so entrenched it’s legislated and taught from a tender age to the point where suggesting there’s another way to think or feel or live seems just unrealistic to most. After all, “the economy” was handed down to us from god, right? People didn’t create it so people can’t change it, right? At least that’s how it’s treated these days.
And yes, Obama is a definite improvement. I cried when he won, but none of his policies go far enough or deep enough quickly enough to pull us out of this mess before too much damage is done. I do believe that he knows this. He’s an extremely intelligent man with is eyes wide open and he wants a future for his girls. But he’s president and knows the limitations of how far he can push.
Now it’s up to us to take advantage of the attitude change and push harder and farther than he can. The momentum is building so change is actually possible now. I do have my doubts that it will come fast enough to save so much of what we all love and what too many people in this country take for granted. If I were to take a poll on the streets of my small town I’d be willing to bet that very few actually think we will have winters without snow, no maple “industry”, that our coastline will change, probably dramatically, and so on. I’d also bet that most don’t know about the ocean of plastic going down 90 feet in some places or even that the tops of mountains are being blown off for coal so we (I) can type on this computer. Most people can’t imagine such things and that’s why so many of them roll their eyes when they read some of my columns. The thing is, I only wish I was wrong. But then, is this lifestyle we have created that most people take for granted (selling themselves 40 plus hours a week so they can pay their bills and do the same thing week after week, sitting in front of the tube, shopping till they drop for crap that only goes to the landfill about a month after the warranty expires) really so wonderful? Okay. Now for my column . . . And thanks to Derrick for the inspiration. I’m so looking forward to his next installment and the conversation that will follow.
I am appreciating this dialogue immensely. I can’t think of anything that is more important to discuss at this point in time. I don’t know if Dana in #53 was referring to me when she/he talks about not having respect for those who think ELF type actions are wrong. Just to clarify what I said earlier, I said that bringing down cell towers etc is not useful. Not that it is wrong. I may be wrong, but I think actions like that only serve to polarize the rest of us. I think things that find common ground have much more success in bringing change.
No matter how fast or how awful the coming changes are, if we focus on loving and taking care of each other, in addition to the planet, we have a much better chance of coming through with joy and beauty and abundance intact for us and for the rest of life.
If we focus on fear and finger-pointing, we create a different sort of world than if we focus on love and gratitude.
These are all points that Derrick has specifically addressed in Endgame. No critique of Derrick’s position is reasonable without reading that book, both volumes, cover to cover.
Derrick advocates ‘non-violence when non-violence is appropriate and violence when violence is appropriate’.
Once we internalize the understanding that industrial civilization will never be sustainable the same way we understand that a clock will never bake a loaf of bread and a stealth bomber will never convert co2 to oxygen then we can start to make rational decisions about what tactics we personally are willing to implement.
These are the type of arguments and debates that the powers that be rely on us having internally. As long as we are fighting each other we are not fighting the system of oppression. If you do not condone violence than you at least should not condemn it. As Derrick has said repeatedly: ‘We need it all.’
There is a chapter in What We Leave Behind written by Derrick Jensen, Aric McBay and Lierre Keith titled ‘Fighting Back’ which answers many posters question ‘Do what?’ with a majority of options for those not willing to commit violent acts. I suggest you read that book, cover to cover, as well.
To me, it’s actually simple: this global culture is now in the process of accomplishing the biggest mass extermination of species since the dinosaurs, and has been doing this since its emergence among certain groups of humans a few thousand years ago.
This mass slaughter is perpetrated by civilized humans, and not by some asteroid or mega-volcano. Hence, humans can do something to stop this ongoing omnicide.
The biosphere is being destroyed. And this, at the rate of about 200 species everyday. And those who don’t acknowledge this fact are either very badly informed, and/or just don’t give a fuck.
We humans are a part of the biosphere. No more, no less.
This civilization, this culture is a culture of “cleansing”. It cleanses parts or whole ecosystems for the sake of agriculture. And it also cleanses human cultures for the “benefit” of one single culture, the civilized one. Mono cultures of crops. And a mono culture of humans. Neither are sustainable.
There are communities and sustainable ways of living to be created, or perpetuated, or re-activated. There is healing to be done. Some might even be able to gain time for their landbase thru legal means. Some might be able to slow down, or help eradicate this diseasivilization via direct actions. And there are many other things – that each person can find on their own – to be done in order to create a successful culture of resistance. The more people there are doing all these different “needed” things, the more we’ll be able to save.
Best
-Misko
Our family has listened to the same land for seven generations. It has sustained us and we take care of it. Our grasslands are pristine, full of biodiversity, and world renown due to private ownership and generations of stewardship. I asked my husband to listen to the pasture this morning when he went out to ride the range. He reported “Buffalo are coming”. “How do you know that?” I quizzed and he responded, “Ear sticky”. How do you decide who deserves to remain and carry on? Aren’t we evolving as a planet and species according to Darwinian Law or are we exempt for some reason?
Hi Wild Rose, you mentioned:
“How do you decide who deserves to remain and carry on?”
I’d say, by allowing this global meat-grinder of a culture to keep going.
This culture and its promoters are deciding – and have been ever since its inception – who remains and who carries on.
And “Darwin’s law”…is just what it says it is: Darwin’s. A limited , arrogant, civlized point of view.
Just my two sense hey! :¬)
Well put Misko. The author’s POV reminds me of the eugenic movement. My raison d’etre is the land not vice versa. Being blessed to have lived on and off the land provides different struggles than almost everyone else. Weather, animals, time & space. It’s a naive existence no doubt, I have no silver bullet, but self preservation is a strong instinct and I want to live too. Peace to all.
I read with baited breath to get to the place where Jensen, after reducing all personal efforts for change to nauught, would say what he though we should do. It was not clear to me. While I am a supporter of going for the gutteral, I am not in favor of the pop nihilism which permeates our media.
As an educator, I have made a commitment not only to tell it like it is but also to offer perspective to a generation that is feeling like their future has been robbed from them. When I was growing up, acid rain and CFCs were overwhelming problems and progress has been made. I like to lay out the seriousness of global warming and then follow it up with teaching the Natural Step, the systems approach that Sweden has been using since 1983. Their eco-municipalities transformed their landscape environmentally, ecologically and socially and became the basis for the Kyoto Protocol of 1992.
I agree that buying green without making real change can delude people into thinking they are part of the solution when they are not. Nevertheless, I feel there are also real consciousness shifts taking place with the emerging generation. I, for one, will stay in the fray to not only continually search to define the problem but work on concrete solutions.
Derrick tells us to “ask the land where (we) live, the land that supports us”. Well, for most of us the land where we live does not support us – we are dependent on lands elsewhere, and generally a long way away, for our survival, as well as the corporate-industrial-military complex that provides us all our stuff from these other lands.
So, we need to be aware of all the lands (and people) that support us, and treat ALL lands (and people) with respect. Our support for “our land” should not mean that other lands are harmed.
We should untangle ourselves, and our lives, as much as possible, from the machine? As Carolyn in 51 said, it is not about what I can do, but what WE can do collectively that can start to turn things around.
Surely, we need to starve the machine of its lifeblood – us, our money, our support, our selves! We can wean ourselves off the machine, and allow it to die its own death. Or we can take a more active approach – protest, campaign, or whatever else we decide. But we must take some real action – not the trivial actions proposed by most corporate-styled green groups.
Living in a rural area I am blessed for sure, and see that for me this land does support me – my garden, local gardens and farms, and so on. For urban folks it’s different, but still the land where you are supports you simply because you’re living there. You walk on it, breathe the air, drink the water (unless you by Poland Spring (Nestle) which may actually come from my town – a huge controversy here – or some other bottled water mined from some other place. The land where you are still exists under all that pavement and concrete and would probably like to be freed . . .. Anyway, you’re right about not taking care of one place at the expense of another so we must think seriously about what we buy and where it comes from and how it’s produced.
Re: Darwin. I’m not an expert on the subject but “survival of the fittest” to my mind has different connotations. Couldn’t the “fittest” or strongest be the ones who cooperate for the benefit of the whole? The thing with all of the natural laws is as we evolve we learn more than when the “law” was origionally put out there. Some, like the law of gravity remains just that, but with regard to evolution, well that’s a complicated and not cut-and-dried field. Humans also have a different kind of consciousness than trees and ants, we can self-reflect and we can make choices for many different reasons than other creatures (not to put down the intelligence of other creatures, just pointing out the differences). Thus we have more responsibility for our own actions and for the consequences of those actions.
And yes, it’s definitely “we” now, not just what I can do or you can do as individuals. This can be frustrating when you live in a community with less “we” consciousness, and when people who might act together as “we” live miles apart (as I do).I know that I’m part of a larger “we” but that still limits the impact of anything I personally do.
This is the first time I’ve taken the time to read all 8 pages of comments about an article. Like most of you, I was captivated and encouraged by Jensen’s question, his comments, and his obvious pain. I’d just watched part of a YouTube movie on Resist–Do Not Comply, in which he had a part (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWVRGaNyT9Y), and its beauty and the pain felt by the creatures in it made me so heartsick. I am a total coward when watching the pain of animals as they try to cope with incomprehensible change, or the pain humans inflict in factory farming or drug testing, etc., and have called attention to this for years and support PETA and many other animal rights organizations, as well as being vegetarian (becoming vegan) in our home.
I read Jensen’s article with interest because he states what my husband and I ask all the time, Why don’t we address the real problem instead of tinkering with little things we can do to ameliorate the results? We’ve done as many of those little things as we possibly can, and know there are big things we are not doing because they are so difficult and entwined in this culture we can’t get out of them without changing everything about our lives. Jensen asks, why do we allow it to go on, why do we participate in it, why do we stand for it?
None of the comments, however, seem to address the growth economy we live in, and the fact that when that growth stops our entire economy, and with globalization that of the world, collapses. That collapse will be a horrendous experience for most of the world’s people, even those who already live on the far margins of a sustainable existence. We believe the efforts we all must be engaged in are directed not just at resisting, which are important, but also at changing all of our expectations and desires, and accepting and preparing for that collapse, and for helping each other endure it. We must learn how to live with much much less, how to do ourselves the tasks necessary for daily life, how to become natural beings rather than sophisticated consumers, how to withdraw from our killing culture in ways that create new meaning for ourselves as humans and make the corporate world an anachronism. Do we regard travel as our right? A holiday feast a necessity? New styles in clothes or cars or furnishings? And what kinds of jobs do we hold, what meaningless things do we do for most of our awake hours? We have to rethink everything, talk together, support each other. And most importantly we have to talk about the problem–the way our culture is designed, and has been for centuries–even though no one wants to hear us.
I have not read Endgame, but shall do so as strongly suggested by Jordan. I did see, and showed to others, the movie What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire, which featured Derrick Jensen among others.
Thanks for reading my comments.
#57 Jordan is right: before offering more comments attempting to critique Jensen, try to understand his perspective first and not merely from this column (which really did spark the best discussion I’ve ever seen on Orion). So first read Endgame (even if you can’t make it through both volumes; his stated list of assumptions at the beginning of the book tell you where he stands). Thank you Leslie for the Resist–Do Not Comply video, hadnt seen that one.
Instead of adding more statements, I want to ask, w/o sarcasm: what does it mean that many of us in our materially well-off Western culture call all humanity a “virus” or a “cancer”? If we believe that people will soon consume both the biosphere and then ourselves, do we believe this is a good thing? (Not saying it isnt or that it isnt inevitable, just wondering about this POV.)
It’s easy to say that humanity is doomed, but I’m still going to have lunch today, right? And the day after . . . .
I’m not even saying “find a reason for hope.” Once we understand that our species is a plague on the Earth and yet it will consume itself and (much of) the Earth will go on — THEN what?
To bear no children is a decision with a powerful weight! : )
You are then able to reach out to members of future generations and remove them from what you have witnessed in your lifetime to be a chaotic, dangerous world, as though you have received some kind of forewarning for their safety.
I should clarify though: that anyone who has borne children is not guilty of sending new humans forth into turmoil. Any of those children can make the decision on their own, when it is time, as to whether or not the world is “fit” or “unfit” for the bearing of children.
Derrick stirs the pot, but I agree strongly with someone who commented that he has to be specific on contrete actions to solve this problem, or its just more hot air that floats about.
Will marching with placards in the streets work, or Gandian non-violence? Meet with your legislators. Show them how you care about the big picture. Changing cirriculum, so that ecology, and knowledge of toxins in our water, earth and air, should begin at the earliest levels of education and be expanded for every year of school.
And the fight doesn’t need a gun, it needs passion and good communication skills.
Gus Speth says “Change Everything Now,” and wants marches in the streets. I’m all for it and would join in. But why has this not happened in a big way? Is he out front, or waiting for another to walk the talk? Communicating, organizing and, most importantly, educating the poorly educated people of America, is hard work.
Whoever does that work, and helps others do it, would be the heros of the future.
Our media, and education at all levels, have been co-opted and overwhelmed by the power of big money, conglomerates, big greed.
Without the help of more of the
the likes of Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio, it will be an uphill battle.
How can we get Orion writers and Bill Moyers in front of every child in America during first period of a Monday morning school day? Every week.
Yet another commentator asking people to tell him/her what to do! No, Jensen (or anyone else) does not need to be specific about “what to do”. There is no way he can be specific. There are millions of actions and only YOU can take them. YOU figure out what is needed in your area and what you are capable of and DO IT. Don’t keep wondering why nothing is happening. Plenty is happening, YOU just aren’t doing what you think needs to be done, so go do it!
I’ve read the article and all the comments with great interest because, as a writer, I have investigated many of these questions. There is a root cause to these problems that lies beneath materialism, greed, and consumption and it is reflected in much of the language used by Jensen and many of the commentators. This root cause is in the very way we view what it means to be human. To many of you, being human means to be a virus and a cancer. Within Western religions we are sinners who need to suck up to a demanding God. In Eastern religion, life is an illusion which we should rise above. Scientists view us as the sum total of our genes, conditioning, and animal urges. Nowhere in these views is there a sense of the possible inherent good in being alive nor is there a sense of the possible fullness and nobility in being human, even in these demanding times. (This nobility has nothing to do with royalty or entitlement.) It’s possible to discover these things, but generally we’re too busy reinforcing our negative belief systems about what humans are.
Without finding inherent value in being alive people create meaning with their things and their exercises of power. Without finding a nobility in being human, everything we attempt to do to save the environment is but shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. The attempts may be valuable to buy time, but they won’t save the day. Also, as we’ve seen in Central America and Africa, revolutionary violence leads only to wasted fields and environmental degradation. Besides, someone is always seeking to seize power in any revolution. The only course of action left to me is to live the meaning and nobility I have found and try to point others to their own discovery.
Now this action has slim chance for success, but is the only one that can really work. I dedicate myself to it no matter the difficulty or impossibility. We cannot build a positive future life on top of our stinking beliefs about what it means to be a human being on this planet. This life has merit, grand merit—being human, walking the planet, fully aware.
John: you’ve raised some important and valid points – about humans becoming more aware and finding nobility (not a word that I would use). This approach is, as you clearly state, unlikely to deliver the change required. So, awareness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for change.
Unfortunately, we can’t wait for everybody to become “aware”. I guess this is what Derrick is saying in a nutshell. And yes, a new society must be based on more fully aware humans (kinder, more compassionate, etc), who know their rightful place on earth, as part of the network of life, not as dominator and destroyer.
But we can’t ignore the distribution and abuse of power, can’t ignore issues of justice and fairness, and wish them away with simple arguments for “awareness” or “spirituality”.
We (the rich?) need to defend (in whatever way is right for us) “nature”, other species, ourselves, indigenous peoples, the poor, from the current onslaught of modern, industrial civilization. We don’t have to solve everything, since all the causes and symptoms are interconnected – working on one aspect affects every other aspect. Just find your thing to bring about a new world, and act. Easy. (OK, not so easy!)
In comment 70, John Spivey writes:
‘…The only course of action left to me is to live the meaning and nobility I have found and try to point others to their own discovery.
…Now this action has slim chance for success, but is the only one that can really work….”
I find this thinking difficult to accept. The ‘only’ course? … and it has a slim chance of success? Please. Isn’t saving the planet worth a bit more effort than that?
The consensus is that there is a large anthropogenic component to the Earth Crisis. Many, MANY ‘courses’ got us into this mess, a myriad of ‘courses’ are necessary to get us out. None of the actions required to turn things around are impossible, most are just ./.. um … “distasteful”. Perhaps one should use that nobility John speaks of to rise to the occasion, and pursue ‘courses’ with more than a slim chance of success, however politically incorrect they are assumed to be?
Peter Brandis then raises an excellent point: there’s not a lot of time to indulge in magical thinking and the ineffectual wish-fulfillment that enough of mankind is going to “get it” though a ‘course’ of non-action action.
One excuses one’s inaction with the platitude that “revolutionary violence leads only to wasted fields and environmental degradation” when history is replete with examples of humans who proved the contrary.
Anyone for taking another look at the blueprints of the Death Star? Perhaps we could apply just a tiny little bit of ‘revolutionary violence’ to that exhaust port?
[sigh]
Never mind. Let’s just all sit and watch the planet implode. Perhaps we can find some inherent value in keeping our noble hands clean. The whales and the rest of the biosphere can withstand a bit more of our predation, don’tyathink? Hand me that deck chair, willya ….?
Of course how you live your life matters–it is the only thing that does matter: to give back more than you take; to minimize your negative impact and maximize your positive; to create beauty; to love; to care for a child. This is all that matters. To say that living a simple life doesn’t make any (positive) difference means that living a consumtive, destructive life doesn’t make any (negative) difference. I don’t accept that. The plastic in the ocean, the carbon in the air, the products from the destroyed forests that you mention–while yes they are the artifacts of a corporate money-making machine–are also intricately entwined with how we live our lives. Even just changing a few CFLs is going to reduce the carbon, mercury and sulfur in the air by just a little bit. How can you say that doesn’t matter?
It seems that the author and many commentators are pointing, through code words, to the declaration of a holy war for the environment’s sake, an ultimate war between good and evil. Within the writing can be found the beginnings of demonization. Back to being shit ball throwing monkeys. Juvenile magical thinking is thinking if I throw a violent tantrum I can make the world be what I want it to be. This current situation is an extreme test that cannot be solved by resorting to any of our old methods and ways of thinking, a grand koan. Violence will create more bitter division and more violence. If we cannot solve this riddle without this violence, then we as a species will have failed. I support doing anything short of violence to buy us time. The arguments for doing whatever it takes, as some writers suggest, are the same ones that Bush/Cheney used. There is a path through this. I said the odds were slim, not because of degree of difficulty, but because few will go there. It involves willingly growing up beyond tantrums and wishful thinking and finding the purpose for life and for being. The largeness of this adult mind knows where to go and what to do.
Hi Andrea,
The way I understand it is that although we can perhaps slow down, the ongoing slaughter of the biosphere by consuming less, and “greener” products, in the end if this omnicidal way of living isn’t stopped, it will accomplish what it is designed for, that is, in my view anyway, the total subjugation, murder, and destruction of all that is beautiful here. This is what this culture has done ever since its emergence about 10 000 years ago, with perhaps the difference that now, it is grinding away at a faster pace than ever.
The other thing I think is that this “How shall I live my life?” question and solution is pretty much the ‘only’ one that is proposed and applied, as Derrick pointed out, and again, while it may slow down the destruction, it’s not stopping it. Hence his analogy:
“…If someone were rampaging through your home, killing those you love one by one (and, for that matter, en masse), would the question burning a hole in your heart be: how should I live my life right now? I can’t speak for you, but the question I’d be asking is this: how do I disarm or dispatch these psychopaths? How do I stop them using any means necessary?…”
And this:
“What question would I ask instead? What if, instead of asking “How shall I live my life?” people were to ask the land where they live, the land that supports them,
“What can and must I do to become your ally, to help protect you from this culture?
What can we do together to stop this culture from killing you?”
If you ask that question, and you listen, the land will tell you what it needs. And then the only real question is: are you willing to do it?”
There are all kinds of stuff that need to be done. Some, yes, will physically protect their loved ones, their landbase, and all communities which are part of it, humans and nonhumans. But, most likely I think, the majority of “Resistors”, or “Protectors”, will take part by supporting the ones who risk their ‘freedom’ and their lives, by building truly sustainable communities, by healing themselves, one another, and the land, and many other much needed actions.
Best
-Misko
Imagine this possible very near future:
Thousands of truly sustainable and egalitarian communities composed of free, smart and autonomous likeminded and hearted people collaborating with one another, and communities collaborating with other such communities.
These free and autonomous people and communities are in a good position to sustain themselves , have fun, and protect their landbases against destruction.
Imagine that! That’s how it was, everywhere on the planet…until a few thousand years ago.
-Misko
Thanks Derrick. I took your advice and wandered out to the back pasture to ask if I could get it anything. The grass wasn’t in the mood, but there was a grasshopper there that seemed chatty enough. So I asked him, “What can I learn from you that will teach me the lessons of sustainability?”
When I saw from the expression on his face that he didn’t get the question, I went further. “You know, the lessons that have allowed the grasshoppers to live within their means over the eons, never over exploiting the resource, always in balance, total harmony…stuff like that.”
He still had a puzzled look on his face as he worked his quid back and forth. He shot out a stream that nailed an aphid as it waddled past. “Kid” he said, wiping his chin, “You obviously don’t know shit about grasshoppers.”
Ha! Try again Plowboy! Takes practice!
Misko,
Did Ghengis Kahn’s neighbors feel “free and autonomous” “in a good position to sustain themselves , have fun, and protect their landbases against destruction”? Granted that was only a millenium ago, but please. The utopian communitarian society described tore down a wall to get free. Jensen’s question, “What is to be Done”? and answers such as a revolution will only occur under a specific set of conditions, including the precondition of an economically exhausted industrialized nation seem haunting and familiar, could it be that 1902 classic by Lenin. I prefer John to Vladimir. Imagine, Let it Be.
Misko said: “instead of asking “How shall I live my life?” people were to ask the land where they live, the land that supports them”
I’m curious, Misko, why you say “instead of”? What am I asking the land–or the water, or the air I breathe–besides the question, “How shall I (or we) live my/our life together”?
Whatever answer I get will depend a lot on how I understand the question, how deeply and broadly I understand that “we.” Derrick suggests we ask: “how can I protect you (the land) from this culture?”
To me, that assumes a) that I’m not part of “this culture”; and b) that I’m the only one who cares. It assumes–a deeply American, Protestant, individualist assumption–that I’m alone in my listening, alone in my understanding. That somehow my understanding can leap outside my culture.
If, on the other hand, I assume that I am not alone, that others may have been listening and working, and that human history is not a total disaster, then I might be able to join my energy and commitment with others. I might stop disparaging the efforts of others, those who were acting according to their own (limited) best lights. I might even find some reason to hope.
Derrick tells me–tells us–that future generations (if any) won’t care about how I lived my life. Not only do I think he’s wrong there, but I think he’s spiritually and rhetorically misguided. The image of not caring does not produce caring, it’s not a motivation for action: it’s an image of a battle already lost. It’s the voice of despair.
I feel despair too, some days–but I try to listen to the water when I feel that way. Despair is not a place we–those of us who depend on water–can act from.
A few months back, someone I know who is an admirer of Jensen was going to interview him and asked friends to submit questions. I had heard a CD of his Vancouver BC lecture on his “Now This War Has Two Sides” Tour and had been horrified. I submitted these questions, which were never addressed to him. I’d still love to see him answer them:
What level of technology do you see as “sustainable?”
What technologies do you see as “unsustainable?”
What human population do you consider the “carrying capacity of the Earth?” If that number is less than the current population, what should be done to reduce the human population to the level you consider the “carrying capacity?”
What do you consider the ideal unit of social organization? Since cities would seem “unsustainable” without technologies you object to, where and how should people live?
Do you think, as many cultural anthropologists argue, that agricultural societies lead to hierarchical social organizations, slavery, and warfare? If so, are hunter/gatherer societies the only ones that fit the vision you promote? If so, how many people do you think the Earth can support if everyone lives as hunter/gatherers?
How many people would you expect to die from “civilization” being been “brought down?”
After you “win” and “civilization” has been “brought down,” how likely do you think it is that most of the survivors will develop egalitarian societies that live in harmony with their environments? How likely do you think it is that those with access to weapons will just dominate those without them?
After you “win” and “civilization” has been “brought down,” what will become of the nuclear arsenals of the developed nations? What of their conventional weapons? What about the industrial/chemical pollutants left behind in abandonned factories?
Perform a little thought experiment. Don’t say “that’s never going to happen.” Just imagine that it will. If in the next few years someone announced a breakthrough in solar energy (or some other non-polluting source)that would make unlimited amounts of non-polluting power virtually free, would that change your ideas? If you could somehow know that in the next 10-20 years technologies would arrive that would bring, wealth, health, peace, and prosperity to everyone and that would allow us to reduce air and water pollution dramatically, would you still want to “bring down civilization?”
At your Vancouver, BC lecture you spoke of owning an AK-47. What would make you shoot it at a human being? You also spoke of your friends who enjoy explosives. Should those explosives only be used against inanimate objects, or should people be targeted too?
If this is a war, should there be killing? If so, who should be killed?
What do you think the consequences would be of destroying the electric grid?
Which is more important: preserving salmon “people” or preserving people “people”?
What methods for discovering “truth” as you would define it do you see as legitimate?
What methods for discovering “truth” as you would define it do you see as illegitimate?
How certain are you that your ideas about the Earth perfectly decribe conditions on the Earth? Is there any possibility, even the slightest, that you might doubt or question your own ideas?
more questions:
What would you say to people who would argue that your call to “bring down civilization” discredits environmental activism with many of those most likely to be sympathetic to its messages?
Imagine this scenario: some people begin to carry out the projects you advocate–blowing up dams, sabotaging the electric grid, blowing up cell phone towers, etc. The U.S. government responds by declaring a national emergency and imposing martial law. They begin rounding up “suspected eco-terrorists” and putting them in Guantanamo-like concentration camps. The result would seem to be even worse than the present. “Civilization” proceeds as usual–after a small temporary setback–but the environmental movement is crippled and its message linked with “terrorism.” How likely is this scenario? Right now, you are free to travel around the country as you please and say and print whatever you want. What would happen to your right to free travel and free expression in this scenario?
Exactly who would you define as “the enemy?” Be as specific as possible. Is it just government, corporate, and military leaders? What about middle class “overconsumers” who live in big houses, drive gas-guzzling cars, and buy products whose production, use, and disposal leads to “environmental degradation?” Which of these people do you see as “legitimate targets?”
In your Vancouver, BC lecture, you called for “A snip in every sack”–universal vasectomy. Was this just a joke, or did you mean it? If you meant it, should it be compulsory or voluntary? If compulsory, how many children should a man be allowed to father before he is “snipped?”
Your message seems most likely to find fertile ground in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Let’s say that your wildest dreams come true and “civilization” is brought down in those parts of the world, but in no other parts of the world. What do you think the likely result would be geopolitically? Would the future that resulted 50 years or so after the “collapse of western civilization” in this scenario be likely to be “better” or “worse” from your worldview?