Xpost from Editorials: Do We Need a Militant Movement to Save the Planet (and Ourselves)?

[GliderGuider]

It's worth clicking through to see this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x618895

[karnac]

1. Militancy pushes the other side to be militant also.

Not knocking it, but just don't expect otherwise. Wisconsin comes to mind.

Afterall, all one needs to be militant is the perception that one will lose all one is entitled to if one is NOT militant. And the expectation that the other side will eventually squeal in defeat(groveling on the ground) for mercy or sudden realization that they were UTTERLY wrong and you were right from the beginning.

Yes., that is how the world works... ;-/

Ah, the beauty of re-education camps. Prevents such a problem from the onset..

[GliderGuider]

2. I agree. But the game is worth the candle.

The global industrial empire and its plutocracy is already militant, as we can see in their ruthless suppression of workers' right everywhere.

As I say in my comment on the other thread, "Civilization has too much head start, too much power, and too much invested to "go gentle into that good night" without raging against any opposition with every means at hand."

Going up against Empire is serious business. But what is the alternative?

If we continue on with business as usual, which is the drawdown of freshwater supplies, the destruction of soil, the burning of every fossil fuel source that can be dug or ground out of the planet, then the endpoint is something that looks like what is happening in the Horn of Africa right now. I mean, that's what happens when colonialism reaches its endpoint and the soil and water are destroyed. That is the kind of future that is going to happen if we don't take action and effective resistance.

My friend Gail Dines has a lot of students that work at places like Old Navy and the Gap, and they regularly find, when they're unpacking the jeans and the T-shirts, little notes stuffed into the pockets that say "Please help us." This is from the factory workers in China or Taiwan or wherever.

[karnac]

3. Agreed. what will survive will be the darwinist best.

Perhaps smaller is better to sustain mankind. and the rest of the living world for that matter.

Interestingly mankind(except for Africa) IS doing better. Population growth is slowing to a crawl, even where we didn't expect it. Life expectation is rising to NEW WORLD levels and beyond. And that is the crux of the matter. Quality of life is something else of course. In fairness the third world countries should have a fair run of it like we did.


Perhaps the sooner we deplete the natural fuel/oil/coal sources the better. The less damage we will do to the environment. And we won't be able to produce the pharmaceuticals to artificially extend our lifetimes beyond the 35-45 years nature designed us for.

[joshcryer]

4. How'd I know it was Derrick Jensen before I clicked?

:rofl:

[GliderGuider]

6. He's a man on a mission, all right.

I just wish it wasn't quite so much, "Let's you and him fight."

[joshcryer]

8. What mission? He could end the operation of any given large city in the country in a few hours...

...and it wouldn't cost more than $20. Now, if I were to explain how this is done, I could get in trouble, but just think about the train systems and the interconnected coal network. If these "militant saviors" were actually "on a mission" they would've done something beyond tearing down innocuous radio antennas or razing animal experiment labs or burning a few SUVs.

They are not, in fact serious, and Jensen is part of the problem, he sells a militant ideology, just as he decries the hipsters of buying into consumerism. Only instead of selling free trade coffee, he sells "free the animal feel goodness."

It's all about righteousness as opposed to a sensible critique, because the critique itself relies on so many logical fallacies that it's a joke. "Appeal to Tradition," because "humans lived in serenity before mass agriculture and industry and civilization!" "Biased Sample," because he takes a sample of human civilization and has absolutely no sample of all possible configurations of human civilization, and therefore the conclusions are based on only a subset of the configurations that human civilization can operate. "Confusing Cause and Effect," likewise, because one human civilization operated in a bad way, does not mean all human civilizations must operate in a bad way. "False Dilemma," also, because the entire basis of his critique relies on the concept that all civilizations must be a certain way and no technology can change how they operate.

I know from personal experience that when he used to do his talks he would not allow anyone to ask questions that weren't basically vetted, and if you asked a question that he perceived as hostile you'd get slammed for it in the most disgustingly arrogant way.

[GliderGuider]

9. Thanks for that, josh.

I've been wondering what was below his veneer. I'm glad you pulled back the curtain.

[joshcryer]

10. You should check out his talks some time.

Go to one in person. Hell, I know a guy who basically pointed out that until he met Jensen in person he was all about what he was saying, but once he actually experienced the very structured nature of his talks (it's not a free discussion event, edit: he could've changed it up, mind you, but back when I went about 4-5 years ago it wasn't) you are really turned off. It's as if he thinks that if he doesn't completely control the narrative he no longer has something worth selling.

As far as fringe is concerned I consider him the primitivist version of Peter Joseph (google his name, his association is something not allowed to be discussed here). I would pay good money to see them two have a free discussion with one another across a table, it'd be hilariously bad in an epic sort of way.

[Kennah]

5. The way I see it, we have 3 options to save the planet

1) Alien overlords

2) Ape overlords

3) Zombies

[GliderGuider]

7. I'm rooting for gray goo!!! /nt