Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

klaivu: Aug 29, 2006; "... Mother?"

I did not see this posted on the forums:

www.sfu.ca posted:

Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

In Approaching a state-shift in Earth�s biosphere, a paper just published in Nature, the authors, whose expertise spans a multitude of disciplines, suggest our planet�s ecosystems are careenng towards an imminent, irreversible collapse.

Earth�s accelerating loss of biodiversity, its climate�s increasingly extreme fluctuations, its ecosystems� growing connectedness, and its radically changing total energy budget are precursors to reaching a planetary state threshold or tipping point.

Once that happens, which the authors predict could be reached this century, the planet�s ecosystems, as we know them, could irreversibly collapse in the proverbial blink of an eye.

�The last tipping point in Earth�s history occurred about 12,000 years ago when the planet went from being in the age of glaciers, which previously lasted 100,000 years, to being in its current interglacial state. Once that tipping point was reached, the most extreme biological changes leading to our current state occurred within only 1,000 years. That�s like going from a baby to an adult state in less than a year,� explains Simon Fraser University Professor�Arne Mooers,�one of this paper�s authors.��Importantly, the planet is changing even faster now.�

He stresses, �The odds are very high that the next global state change will be extremely disruptive to our civilizations. Remember, we went from being hunter-gatherers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth�s history.

�Once a threshold-induced planetary state shift occurs, there�s no going back. So, if a system switches to a new state because you�ve added lots of energy, even if you take out the new energy, it won�t revert back to the old system. The planet doesn�t have any memory of the old state.�

These projections contradict the popularly held belief that the extent to which human-induced pressures, such as climate change, are destroying our planet is still debatable, and any collapse would be both gradual and centuries away.

This study concludes we better not exceed the 50 per cent mark of wholesale transformation of Earth�s surface or we won�t be able to delay, never mind avert, a planetary collapse. We�ve already reached the 43 per cent mark through our conversion of landscapes into agricultural and urban areas, making Earth increasingly susceptible to an environmental epidemic.

�In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren�t there,� says Mooers. �My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the earth�s history are more than pretty worried. In fact, some are terrified.�

In a nutshell, the study proposes that a global environmental state-shift in our lifetime is likely.

Link to article: http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2012/study-predicts-imminent-irreversible-planetary-collapse.html
or http://www.kurzweilai.net/study-predicts-imminent-irreversible-planetary-collapse

Original study: http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012.pdf

# ? Jun 13, 2012 10:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 22:13

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Ahahaha we're so completely hosed arghhh

# ? Jun 13, 2012 10:54

the kawaiiest: Dec 22, 2010; Uguuuu ~

Welp. Hope I'll be dead by the time the poo poo hits the fan.

quote:

Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly. More of us need to move to optimal areas at higher density and let parts of the planet recover. Folks like us have to be forced to be materially poorer, at least in the short term. We also need to invest a lot more in creating technologies to produce and distribute food without eating up more land and wild species. It�s a very tall order.

None of this will ever happen. We really are doomed, aren't we.

the kawaiiest fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Jun 13, 2012

# ? Jun 13, 2012 11:08

Av027: Aug 27, 2003; Qowned.

the kawaiiest posted:

None of this will ever happen. We really are doomed, aren't we.

Pretty much. But hey, look at it this way...

...Ok I couldn't think of any positive angle.

# ? Jun 13, 2012 13:21

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

Has there been any research looking into the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere? It seems to me that if carbon dioxide is building up due to the burning of fossil fuels then there would be a corresponding decrease in atmospheric oxygen gas as it is consumed to form carbon dioxide and water.

# ? Jun 13, 2012 14:23

Fatkraken: Jun 23, 2005; Fun-time is over.

4liters posted:

Has there been any research looking into the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere? It seems to me that if carbon dioxide is building up due to the burning of fossil fuels then there would be a corresponding decrease in atmospheric oxygen gas as it is consumed to form carbon dioxide and water.

I daresay there have been minor changes but they would not be noticeable. C02 is currently around 395 parts per million in the atmosphere or 0.0395%. Oxygen comprises around 21% of the atmosphere, or 210,000 parts per million (the majority of the air is near-inert nitrogen). CO2 is a trace gas, the important thing is the fact that it has considerably higher capacity to trap heat than the Nitrogen and Oxygen which comprise the vast majority of the atmosphere.

# ? Jun 13, 2012 14:45

Your Sledgehammer: May 10, 2010; Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME

I'll just leave this here.

quote:

The Second Denial

Over the past decade, a significant proportion of the world�s population has moved past denial that human activity is killing our planet, and that our current way of life is utterly unsustainable. But very few have moved past denial that our civilization is finished, most likely in this century, that there�s nothing we can do to prevent it, that the descent, as civilization crashes, will cause much damage and suffering, and that our human descendents will be much fewer in number and live radically simpler, relocalized lives. I call this the Second Denial.

Until we get past this second denial, most of those privileged and enlightened enough to have been able to move past the first denial will continue to waste everyone�s time and energy trying to �reinvent� civilization, prescribing utopian technological, innovative, behavioural or social fixes to prevent collapse.

Meanwhile, those who have not yet moved past the first denial will be doing everything in their power to sustain the industrial growth status quo. They include:

- The corporatists who �own� most of the land, resources and media, whose vast stolen wealth is fiercely and relentlessly devoted to generating even greater acceleration of industrialization, resource use, production, and control and propagandization of their �consumers�, no matter the cost, because as soon as growth stalls, they lose everything;

- The billions (mostly in struggling nations) who aspire to live the way the well-off in affluent nations live today, and who don�t understand why this is impossible; and

- The passive consumers of affluent nations who have been bred from birth to be fearful of change and who cling desperately, even violently, to the American Dream of universal prosperity and endless �progress�.

As our civilization begins to reel under the combined effects of the end of cheap energy, the end of stable climate, and the end of the industrial growth economy, this majority will resist every attempt to mitigate the damages our civilization is causing, in the desperate hope that they can get, or keep, a piece of the Dream. Those already struggling will do everything they can to stay alive as civilization crumbles, including razing what�s left of our forests, building nukes, burning coal, and exhausting the world�s fresh water. Complicit with them will be the passive consumers, who will give anything to protect their lifestyle � the only way they know to live � and the corporatists, dependent on never-ending bailouts and ever-increasing production, consumption and debt for their overly-leveraged, growth-addicted political and economic enterprises.

The informed progressives and idealists who have moved past the first denial will be no match (in numbers, power or desperation) for the billions who believe their survival depends on sustaining the unsustainable. Idealistic progressives� actions to try to move to a more sustainable way for us all to live, to �reinvent� civilization, or to find some kind of utopian technological or social �solution� that will allow a gentle descent and a soft landing for civilization, will be overwhelmed by the horrific damages the majority will inflict on our planet in the desperate attempt to survive. The result will be more pollution, faster acceleration of atmospheric warming, rapid abandonment of environmental regulations and attempts at enforcement, and more (mostly local) resource wars.

Only when a significant proportion of our species moves past the Second Denial can we start working on mitigating and resilience actions that will actually help those facing the crises of civilization�s collapse. Only when we give up our �we can control this� mentality, and our magical thinking dreams and schemes � belief in and wasted effort on global consciousness raising, spontaneous voluntary massive change, technological cures, gentle transition programs, wishful incremental-change-is-enough (if we all do it) thinking, individual preparedness plans, social/economic reinvention and �innovating our way forward� projects � will we be able to face the stark reality of what our children and grandchildren are going to face because of our stupidity, and get to work on actions to mitigate its worst effects and develop the capacities we and they will need to cope with cascading crises as they unfold.

Since I made my own reluctant way past the second denial, I have found myself arguing more often with those who have worked past the first denial than those who have not. I have been accused of defeatism and �doomer� thinking and �unhelpful� negativity. �We want hopeful projects that make a difference now�, they tell me.

I don�t want to argue. Daniel Quinn said famously:

"People will listen when they�re ready to listen and not before. Probably, once upon a time, you weren�t ready to listen to an idea than now seems to you obvious, even urgent. Let people come to it in their own time. Nagging or bullying will only alienate them. Don�t preach. Don�t waste time with people who want to argue. They�ll keep you immobilized forever. Look for people who are already open to something new."

While Quinn was undoubtedly speaking about people still at the First Denial stage, I�ve found his advice works just as well when dealing with people at the Second Denial stage.

But it�s pretty lonely here, too far ahead of myself for my own, or anyone else�s good. Granted, there are some others who�ve made it past the Second Denial: many of the Dark Mountain artists, some grief counsellors who recognize the symptoms of denial, three leading climate scientists I�ve met (a seriously depressed group), some post-civ writers and readers, and some fans of John Gray�s Straw Dogs.

While I�m waiting, I�m trying to understand why so many bright people are still stuck at the Second Denial stage. They really don�t want to hear any information that would push them past denial.

I�ve been looking at the famous (and controversial) five-stages-of-grief model, which is pictured on the chart above. Here�s why I think it�s so hard for people to make it through these stages, starting with the stages of grief related to the First Denial (that our current way of life is unsustainable):

- Denial: �I can�t believe this is happening�. We�ve always figured out how to overcome problems in the past; this won�t be any different. Look outside, it doesn�t look like anything is wrong. We�ve always been taught, and told, that times have never been better, progress is endless, and our civilization is the culmination of centuries of learning, adaptation and wisdom. And there are a bunch of scientists and other experts out there who say this is all speculation and fear-mongering; I believe them. If it were that serious, we�d know, we�d be acting, our leaders would be fixing it.

- Anger: �It�s not fair; who�s to blame?� I�ve raised my kids so they�ll have a chance to live better lives than mine, and no one told me this is now impossible. It�s the government�s fault. Someone should go to jail for this. Why didn�t someone do something about this earlier, so it wouldn�t have got to this point? Why is God testing us this way?

- Bargaining: �I would give anything for this not to be true now�. Let�s do what we have to do � deregulate coal mining and nuclear power development, so at least we put this off for a few generations. Maybe by then there�ll be some better answers that won�t require any real change in behaviour. I�ll drive a smaller car, recycle and turn off the lights, and if we require everyone to do that surely that will buy us some time? Let us pray for salvation.

- Depression: �What�s the point in doing anything then?� Might as well give up, since nothing that I do will make much of an impact anyway. How do I talk to my kids about this? Was it my fault for not knowing, our generation�s fault for not acting when we had time?

- Acceptance: �OK, it�s true and I can�t fight it, so what can I do now?� Lets see what will be needed to make the transition to a way of life that is sustainable. I�m willing to sacrifice more now, so that future generations will have a good quality of life. Let�s tell everyone about this, get global consciousness up to the point we�re all working to make it better. God will look after us anyway. And human ingenuity, when push comes to shove, can find ways to make life both sustainable and materially comfortable, so we don�t really have to change much. Let�s get on with it.

And now, the stages of grief related to the Second Denial (we can�t prevent collapse, and it�s going to be profound and difficult):

- Denial: �I can�t believe this is happening�. Civilizations don�t die. We�re living in the greatest time ever, a time when the human species has learned and invented more than ever before in history. We�ve put people on the moon, so surely we can solve this problem. I don�t want to hear this defeatist crap. If we all work together, there�s nothing that can�t be done. There are signs everywhere of global consciousness raising � we still have time to reinvent civilization to be sustainable, and even better than it is now. And the people I trust tell me not to worry � that this is just a temporary hiccup before we get back to healthy sustainable growth again. If it�s really that bad, why isn�t anyone talking about it, and why aren�t the signs of it obvious?

- Anger: �It�s not fair; who�s to blame?� drat the corporatists, the lawyers, the greasy politicians and governments, the neo-cons, the people with large families, the people with large SUVs, the media, stupid loving moronic people in general � they�ve conspired and been complicit in letting the world get to this impossible place. We were crying for action when we saw this crash coming and everyone else was just arguing over the seating arrangements. Humans are so greedy, so selfish, so thoughtless, so ignorant. When things get hard, I�m just going to look after myself and to hell with everyone else. My spiritual icon, why have you forsaken us, you�re supposed to look after us?

- Bargaining: �I would give anything for this not to be true now�. If civilization is doomed anyway, why not live it up, take everything we can get, ratchet everything up to get a few more years of good life. Turn off that bad news, I�m convinced already, we�re hosed, I don�t want to hear about it anymore. Tell me you still love me, that you know we all did our best, that we�re not to blame, that it�ll be OK at least for a while longer. Buy me a spaceship, find me an all-powerful saviour, transplant my consciousness into something that will survive the crash.

- Depression: �What�s the point in doing anything then?� It�s hopeless. Might as well blow it all up now and stop the suffering early. It�s only going to get worse. Our children and grandchildren are going to hate us forever for what we�ve done to them.

- Acceptance: �OK, it�s true and I can�t fight it, so what can I do now?� John Gray:

"The mass of mankind is ruled not by its own intermittent moral sensations, still less by self-interest, but by the needs of the moment. It seems fated to wreck the balance of life on Earth � and thereby to be the agent of its own destruction. What could be more hopeless than placing the Earth in the charge of this exceptionally destructive species? It is not of becoming the planet�s wise stewards that Earth-lovers dream, but of a time when humans have ceased to matter�

Humans use what they know to meet their most urgent needs � even if the result is ruin. When times are desperate they act to protect their offspring, to revenge themselves on enemies, or simply to give vent to their feelings. These are not flaws that can be remedied. Science cannot be used to reshape humankind in a more rational mould. The upshot of scientific inquiry is that humans cannot be other than irrational�

We can dream of a world in which a greatly reduced human population lives in a partially restored paradise; in which farming has been abandoned and green deserts given back to the earth; where the remaining humans are settled in cities, emulating the noble idleness of hunter-gatherers, their needs met by new technologies that leave little mark on the Earth; where life is given over to curiosity, pleasure and play. There is nothing technically impossible about such a world�A High-tech Green utopia, in which a few humans live happily in balance with the rest of life, is scientifically feasible; but it is humanly unimaginable. If anything like this ever comes about, it will not be through the will of homo rapiens�

Political action has come to be a surrogate for salvation; but no political project can deliver humanity from its natural condition. However radical, political programmes are expedients � modest devices for coping with recurring evils. Hegel writes that humanity will be content only when it lives in a world of its own making. In contrast, [this book] Straw Dogs argues for a shift from human solipsism [belief in our aloneness and our disconnection from everything else]. Humans cannot save the world, but this is no reason for despair. It does not need saving. Happily, humans will never live in a world of their own making�

Homo rapiens is only one of very many species, and not obviously worth preserving. Later or sooner, it will become extinct. When it is gone Earth will recover. Long after the last traces of the human animal have disappeared, many of the species it is bent on destroying will still be around, along with others that have yet to spring up. The Earth will forget mankind. The play of life will go on."

[And in the meantime, he says, we should take joy in the astonishment of being alive, in idle pleasures and play, and in reflection, contemplation and living in the Now; we should be as responsible as we can in the context of our own communities, and take consolation from the value of our just actions even though their impact is small; and we should fill our lives with awareness, new experiences, love and learning, and just be.]

The stages-of-grief model is far from perfect, but it describes pretty well the roil of most of the people I know who are transitioning past either the First Denial or the Second. When you are coping with grief of the kind this terrible knowledge invokes, it is easy to get stuck, to backslide into earlier stages, even to experience all the stages at once.

I�m not an advocate of feeling grief just to progress past denial. My guess is that many people can�t handle it, and are probably better off living in denial, at least as long as possible. I�m just suggesting that when I got past the Second Denial I found it very painful, much more painful than what I felt when I moved past the First.

Denial is certainly understandable, especially when it relates to something as massive, impersonal, gradual, �invisible� and unimaginable as collapse of a civilization. Studies of past civilizations suggest their citizens believed they would last forever too. Talking about civilization�s collapse is even less socially acceptable than talking about climate change � the kind of subject that leaves people uncomfortable, depressed, feeling helpless, and anxious to �change the subject� (or the channel).

As long as there are 1000 articles talking about the importance of returning to economic growth, increasing profits and GDP, for every article advocating a zero-growth economy, it is those who have moved past the first denial who feel cognitive dissonance with what they know to be true, not the First Deniers. And when there are even fewer articles saying that even moving to a steady-state economy is a pipedream, and that what is needed is actions to dismantle the worst elements of the industrial growth economy now, it is no surprise that talk of the need for such actions causes the eyes of First Deniers to roll back in their heads, and brings exasperated cries of �doomer�, �unhelpful�, �defeatist� and �polarizing radical� from Second Deniers who feel caught in the middle. They are caught in the middle, just as those who�ve moved past Second Denial feel isolated and alone.

Richard Bruce Anderson describes the grief that accompanies the First and Second Denials:

"At the heart of the modern age is a core of grief. At some level, we�re aware that something terrible is happening, that we humans are laying waste to our natural inheritance. A great sorrow arises as we witness the changes in the atmosphere, the waste of resources and the consequent pollution, the ongoing deforestation and destruction of fisheries, the rapidly spreading deserts and the mass extinction of species. All these changes signal a turning point in human history, and the outlook is not particularly bright. The anger, irritability, frustration and intolerance that increasingly pervade our common life are symptoms associated with grief� Grief is a natural reaction to calamity, and the stages of grief are visible in our reaction to the rapid decline of the natural world�

Even if we face the consequences of our assault on the natural environment, we may still find that the problems are too big, that there�s not much we can do. Yet those of us who feel this sorrow cannot forever deny it, without suffering inexplicable disturbances in our own lives. It�s necessary to face our fear and our pain, and to go through the process of grieving, because the alternative is a sorrow deeper still: the loss of meaning. To live authentically in this time, we must allow ourselves to feel the magnitude of our human predicament."

I�m also suggesting that until I moved past the Second Denial I was one of those idealists who wasted a huge amount of time and energy (mine and others) on dreams and schemes to �save the world� � by means of innovation, technology, mass behaviour change, consciousness-raising and the other forms of salvationist magical thinking, the kind that the deniers of the inevitability of civilization�s collapse so love. And from my perspective the sooner we get past dreams of salvation, and move on to undoing, stopping and mitigating the worst current effects of industrial civilization (like the Alberta Tar Sands and factory farming) , the better.

We can stop some of the suffering, and the destruction to our planet, if we�re willing to take the (potentially enormous) risks that stopping it entails. Hoping and expecting that we (a) will invent our way out of it, or (b) can persuade billions of people to stop supporting it and thus disable it, is just wishful thinking, and it�s useless.

I don�t know if I�m prepared to take those risks. But my reticence is not due to denial that the Alberta Tar Sands and factory farming are atrocities creating massive destruction and suffering, or denial that stopping them wouldn�t be of enormous benefit to the world, or denial that there is no magical way to achieve the same end safely and gently. And these atrocities are, in microcosm, what is happening with our entire industrial civilization.

Perhaps when there are more of us�

- Dave Pollard
http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2011/07/30/the-second-denial/

I agree with the general thrust of the article even if I disagree with some of the details. What this kind of thinking demands is a radical reassessment of values and a total shift in worldview. The new worldview that emerges is one that Edward Goldsmith, in the book "The Way," calls an "ecological worldview." Other writers like David Abram, E.R. Sorensen, and Daniel Quinn have also explored this new worldview. The kind of thinking and feeling that is necessary to truly understand this worldview is so new and unfamiliar to me that I can only really get at the edges right now, but the broadest terms I can use to describe it are deeply subjective, holistic (by nature, it bleeds into all aspects of the human experience), and on the spiritual level, animistic/pantheistic.

Of course, this means doing away with the old "rational-objective" worldview entirely. The notion of objectivity itself is what I'd call into question; we have the idea that we are fundamentally separate from the things around us, and that means we can observe them from on high and tease out some sort of universal, rational truth from our observations. A natural extension of this philosophy is the will to control and dominate those external objects, and that's where we run into insurmountable problems, especially when it comes to nature. The ironic thing is that the only reasons we have to justify thinking of ourselves as separate from nature are flimsy value judgements - that we are more intelligent than other species, that we are God's chosen species, etc.

Of course, doing away with a rational-objective worldview has devastating consequences for science. However, I find it fascinating that the highest levels of science have been tiptoeing around such consequences for decades. Consider things like the interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly the von Neumann interpretation, or the deterministic, purposeful randomness of complexity theory. At the physical extremes - cosmological and subatomic - our traditional, objective understanding of science breaks down entirely, and it seems that our inherent subjectivity has doomed us to never have the ability to ascertain the fundamental nature of the universe. The mysterious twist that I'm getting at is that maybe we have it all backwards in thinking that the universe has some fundamentally objective character that we can understand. I'm not saying that there aren't some universal rules we can observe - things like gravity and evolution - but perhaps the entirety of existence itself naturally has subjectivity, awareness, and even will of some sort. Consider that there are a number of physical constants that if adjusted even infinitesimally would completely preclude reality as we know it.

Think about the sense of wonder in Carl Sagan's voice when he explains that we're all made of star stuff, or Einstein's statement about God not being a gambler. Richard Dawkins has even called pantheism "sexed up atheism." It's a great soundbite, but it totally misses the radical moral, emotional, psychological, and spiritual implications of pantheistic/animistic beliefs. A truly animistic grounding would have never lead us to our current techno-industrial enterprise.

I realize that I am wandering far afield here, but to tie this back into the immediate discussion, I see this flawed objective thinking in a common lament of environmentalists, what I call the "I can't believe we're doing this to the world!" fallacy. The problem is that such a statement sees the world as something external to be acted upon. It isn't. We are as much a part of the world as the soil beneath our feet. The fact that we are the agents causing climate shift and ecological collapse makes it no less natural a process than if trees, aardvarks, or a meteor caused it. This isn't even unprecedented in the history of the Earth - the oxygen crisis was caused by cyanobacteria. Note here that I'm absolutely not saying that what's happening is a good thing, just that it is as natural as anything else. Even the term "environment" is problematic. We'd be better off replacing it with the word "home."

It's funny to me that the way we test the intelligence of other species is through language - not just any language, but human language. Abstract thinking, all that jazz. What a silly approach! We're constantly having to move the goalposts, too, lest grey parrots or gorillas be declared as smart as us. If we were to ever encounter a species as intelligent as us on another planet, we'd probably fail to recognize it, because we'd be expecting rational-objective civilization builders. We are blinded by our civilized human nature, and we project our behavior onto all other life and make value judgements based on their performance. Do you think dolphins pass judgement on us because we are incapable of grasping the meaning and syntax of their chirps and squeals?

We can't stave off collapse, but I hope that in the death throes of this society, some of us can begin to build a foundation for coming generations. Part of this, to me, is a new way of understanding our place in the world, and I'm happy to know that many others are already exploring new types of thinking. I highly recommend the Dark Mountain Project; the folks there are wrangling with the despair and grief of collapse as well as the challenge of a new worldview in a literary and artistic way that really drives at the psychodrama of what is going on.

Your Sledgehammer fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jun 13, 2012

# ? Jun 13, 2012 21:40

Tactical Mistake: May 11, 2011; Planning Ahead Strategically

The worst part is how mad and belligerent people get when I bring this up, if they even do respond at all. This thread really is the only place I can join in on this kind of discussion without being persecuted. It's difficult.

# ? Jun 13, 2012 22:45

Your Sledgehammer: May 10, 2010; Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME

I know your pain. People just don't want to think about it, it's too disturbing, and I agree with what you said a few pages back - most folks have an intuitive understanding that we're toast in the short term. The only way they have of coping psychologically is denial and anger. I know that I haven't truly come to terms emotionally with the horrific implications, because it still feels distant to me, even if I know it isn't.

My family is largely bewildered by what I have to say about this stuff. I tried talking about a much less devastating problem, the Euro crisis, with an acquaintance yesterday, and I was pretty much ignored.

Take heart in the knowledge that you're not the only one with these thoughts. There are people here and elsewhere on the Internet and in the world at large who are beginning to come together to cope with the enormous loss as well as strive towards alternate modes of human existence.

Your Sledgehammer fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jun 13, 2012

# ? Jun 13, 2012 23:11

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

Fatkraken posted:

I daresay there have been minor changes but they would not be noticeable. C02 is currently around 395 parts per million in the atmosphere or 0.0395%. Oxygen comprises around 21% of the atmosphere, or 210,000 parts per million (the majority of the air is near-inert nitrogen). CO2 is a trace gas, the important thing is the fact that it has considerably higher capacity to trap heat than the Nitrogen and Oxygen which comprise the vast majority of the atmosphere.

I realise it would be a small drop, but it would still be measurable right?

# ? Jun 13, 2012 23:13

Fatkraken: Jun 23, 2005; Fun-time is over.

4liters posted:

I realise it would be a small drop, but it would still be measurable right?

I'm honestly not sure. I guess so.

# ? Jun 13, 2012 23:21

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

I think the thing with primitivism is that it's impossible to plan for the collapse of civilisation "within this century". Certainly it would be utterly impossible to dismantle civilisation in a controlled manner within a century without either triggering enormous wars, mass famines and assorted very nasty things, all of which would bring a return to some form of civilisation to limit the damage.

So it's very, very impractical. Assuming complete civilisational collapse is useless, because we cannot do anything about it if that is the case. Arguing that is only going to get you dismissed as a hysteric.

Besides that, it's also not going to be materially possible to dismantle civilisation in any effective manner, due simply to the political calculus involved in it - civilisation beat out primitivism when it was much, much less developed than it is now, after all - I see no mechanism for allowing primitivism to survive in a modern context, even post-collapse you'd still find people forming civilisations and so on.

So basically, it's a useless analysis. It may not be fundamentally incorrect - I am by no means an expert - but politically, dismantling civilisation simply is not an option because doing it in any reasonably quick manner *will* involve genocide, at best by way of forced sterilisation and totalitarian breeding regulations.

If you want to prepare yourself for the collapse of civilisation, go ahead, but it's such an unproductive assumption to argue from that you can hardly blame people who dismiss it outright. It's hard enough getting people to come to terms with climate change and the necessity of changing our mode of living to ameliorate environmental damage without coming across as a complete doomsayer.

Another point I'd like to add is that civilisation itself seems to be conflated with the currently dominant capitalist mode of production in a lot of primitivist ideology, and that is a rather iffy piece of business - early feudalism, for instance, was from an environmental point of view completely sustainable. I mean, it was horrible for everyone involved, but it was certainly an example of environmentally sustainable civilisation.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 00:22

Dr. Gibletron: Oct 27, 2010

V. Illych L. posted:

Another point I'd like to add is that civilisation itself seems to be conflated with the currently dominant capitalist mode of production in a lot of primitivist ideology, and that is a rather iffy piece of business - early feudalism, for instance, was from an environmental point of view completely sustainable. I mean, it was horrible for everyone involved, but it was certainly an example of environmentally sustainable civilisation.

I don't think feudalism was sustainable at all. Sure, it could plod along for a few generations, but land usage was pretty piss-poor, and they were wracked with their own fair share of ecological crises. Granted, these were more localized, but it's still not a sustainable system. To go back even further, Theophrastus, who was writing in the 3rd century BC, documented the problems associated with deforestation and soil degradation around Athens.

Here's one paper that talks about feudalism and the ecology: http://www.jasonwmoore.com/uploads/Moore__Crisis_of_Feudalism__An_Enviornmental_History__O_E__2002_.pdf

Civilization just seems to be inherently unstable and prone to collapse. Jared Diamond has explored this in Collapse, and I don't think you we can just dismiss discussions surrounding civilization's collapse because it's uncomfortable, and it sounds slightly insane. Sometimes there's just not a whole lot we can do about our own situation. And all talk of preparing for collapse? It can't be done, in my opinion. We as a race are doomed to be victims of history.

Dr. Gibletron fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jun 14, 2012

# ? Jun 14, 2012 00:39

the kawaiiest: Dec 22, 2010; Uguuuu ~

I've always been and will continue to be pro nuclear, but even if a miracle happened and somehow nuclear technology stopped being the boogeyman, by itself it wouldn't solve anything. Paired with efficient public transport, less cars, smaller houses, and so on, I think maybe it would solve a lot of problems (certainly not all of them but a lot of them). But on its own I think it would make very little difference. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm an artist not a scientist.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 00:55

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

A shift to nuclear generation could do alot, but introducing more efficient gas cars and better electric ones will be important, as well as implementing home-scale renewable generation.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Jun 14, 2012 01:00

Your Sledgehammer: May 10, 2010; Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME

Here are the problems, though:

1. The things you are suggesting will never happen. Fossil fuel interests are too entrenched at all levels of society.

2. Nuclear generation, electric cars, so on and so forth are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point. The permafrost is melting, we've reached the tipping point. Climate change has now entered into a self-sustaining positive feedback loop. It is literally too late; no "doomsaying" involved, just reality.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 01:13

Dusz: Mar 5, 2005; SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!

Basically, the primitivist society would be inferior. That is the end of it, and why primitivists should be marginalized into non-existence or repressed if they try to put their insanity into practice. Their dystopian idea of the future is a tremendous disaster that has to be avoided at all costs. The mere minority claim that it is inevitable is not a reason to support this society, just the same as the "humans will be all gone in like... a billion years" is no argument for humans to exterminate their own species now or cheer along instances where the number of humans is reduced. At the heart of primitivism is a void, there is nothing to its proposal.

So the reason someone is a primitivist in the most complete sense (seeks/hopes for complete destruction of civilization), is one of a few reasons. First, the person itself is such a depressive wastrel that he cannot muster anything of himself to improve humanity, so he resigns himself to failure, then extends this concept into his ideas on humanity as a whole. Second, the person is a fool. Third, the person is a hypocrite.

Mind you, maybe someone that might be (probably wrongfully) labeled as a primitivist has some interesting ideas, that might be productive to human civilization. There is obviously a need for some kind of alternative civilization in general, and maybe that could have elements of what has been proposed by the more radical environmentalists, though that remains to be seen.

The ideas of people like Your Sledgehammer just beg for outrage. It is the same reaction as I get when I'm exposed to other disgusting ideas like extreme racism or fundamentalism. It is simply intolerable, and when the ideas of a group of people are so incredibly wrong, it cannot be approached from the point of complete detachment.

Of course, this does keep derailing the thread. Since Your Sledgehammer himself has proposed the idea of a separate thread for this discussion, I think he should go and do it, and make the new thread about the different interpretations of primitivism/radical ecology. If only to get it out of this thread.

Also, it is such a huge disconnect of quality in this thread between the reasonable/news posts and the primitivist posts. To see a very specific example of this, just ctrl+f "Homo Rapiens" on this page of the thread. If I wanted such a level of discourse, I could read up on the time cube or visit some other conspiracy nut website.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 01:16

Dusz: Mar 5, 2005; SORE IN THE ASS that it even exists!

Your Sledgehammer posted:

Here are the problems, though:

1. The things you are suggesting will never happen. Fossil fuel interests are too entrenched at all levels of society.

2. Nuclear generation, electric cars, so on and so forth are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point. The permafrost is melting, we've reached the tipping point. Climate change has now entered into a self-sustaining positive feedback loop. It is literally too late; no "doomsaying" involved, just reality.

You should go and make a new thread about this. About half of most of the recent pages have been devoted to this very specific subtopic and so a new thread would make sense in most every way.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 01:17

the kawaiiest: Dec 22, 2010; Uguuuu ~

Your Sledgehammer posted:

Here are the problems, though:

1. The things you are suggesting will never happen. Fossil fuel interests are too entrenched at all levels of society.

2. Nuclear generation, electric cars, so on and so forth are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point. The permafrost is melting, we've reached the tipping point. Climate change has now entered into a self-sustaining positive feedback loop. It is literally too late; no "doomsaying" involved, just reality.

Yeah, like I said, I don't think it will solve all the problems, just some of them. I don't believe that there is one single solution to everything. I'm just wondering if this is a step we could take or if it would be just a waste of time.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 01:25

a lovely poster: Aug 5, 2011; by Pipski

Dusz posted:

Basically, the primitivist society would be inferior. That is the end of it, and why primitivists should be marginalized into non-existence or repressed if they try to put their insanity into practice. Their dystopian idea of the future is a tremendous disaster that has to be avoided at all costs. The mere minority claim that it is inevitable is not a reason to support this society, just the same as the "humans will be all gone in like... a billion years" is no argument for humans to exterminate their own species now or cheer along instances where the number of humans is reduced. At the heart of primitivism is a void, there is nothing to its proposal.

Nobody is saying we should exterminate our own species. Although I don't understand what's wrong with cheering say, falling birth rates? There are more ways to reduce the population than killing people which seems to regularly slip your mind. You don't even know what primitivism is and yet you're here preaching away.

quote:

So the reason someone is a primitivist in the most complete sense (seeks/hopes for complete destruction of civilization), is one of a few reasons. First, the person itself is such a depressive wastrel that he cannot muster anything of himself to improve humanity, so he resigns himself to failure, then extends this concept into his ideas on humanity as a whole. Second, the person is a fool. Third, the person is a hypocrite.

Really?

quote:

Mind you, maybe someone that might be (probably wrongfully) labeled as a primitivist has some interesting ideas, that might be productive to human civilization. There is obviously a need for some kind of alternative civilization in general, and maybe that could have elements of what has been proposed by the more radical environmentalists, though that remains to be seen.

Alternate civilization? Do you understand what climate change is? How would an alternate civilization in any way help us. If anything, it would make it worse.

quote:

The ideas of people like Your Sledgehammer just beg for outrage. It is the same reaction as I get when I'm exposed to other disgusting ideas like extreme racism or fundamentalism. It is simply intolerable, and when the ideas of a group of people are so incredibly wrong, it cannot be approached from the point of complete detachment.

You do realize that for those of us who are able to read it without being whipped into a rage are kind of annoyed every time you come into the thread pouring a bunch of emotional bullshit out with no substance of any kind.

quote:

Of course, this does keep derailing the thread. Since Your Sledgehammer himself has proposed the idea of a separate thread for this discussion, I think he should go and do it, and make the new thread about the different interpretations of primitivism/radical ecology. If only to get it out of this thread.

Also, it is such a huge disconnect of quality in this thread between the reasonable/news posts and the primitivist posts. To see a very specific example of this, just ctrl+f "Homo Rapiens" on this page of the thread. If I wanted such a level of discourse, I could read up on the time cube or visit some other conspiracy nut website.

Just stop reading the thread. "Homo rapiens" is a quote from an environmentalist author, and one that has a reason behind it. You may not like the terminology (I think it's a little crude as well) but I think his entire point is to elicit that emotional reaction when you read the word. To drive home just how poorly we have "managed" our environment.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 01:26

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Dusz posted:

You should go and make a new thread about this. About half of most of the recent pages have been devoted to this very specific subtopic and so a new thread would make sense in most every way.

I'm pretty sure that thread got made if you wanna go post in it.

As uncomfortable as Your Sledgehammer's posts seem to make you, hes raising a pretty important point about the insolubility of this problem. Sure, you can just indignantly dismiss him, but his point still stands. I think to call it a void is to miss the mark. Its pointing out the truth that as the clock keeps ticking, the only real solutions are going to become more radical and untenable. Our prognosis needs to be more realistic.

This "You can only talk about stuff productive to civilization or you need to geeeeet OUT" is some real love it or leave it, head in the sand nonsense. We're approaching a point where this kind of bravado is just feeding empty optimism to the patients in the terminal illness ward.

I don't think sugarcoating the situation with daydreams about technology saving the world is helpful, because it gives people a phoney illusion that nothing needs to happen or change, because things will sort themselves out.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 01:32

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

Yeah looking at how the thing we are most dependent on (food production) is going to be affected by climate change I can't help but think that we are heading for some sort of radical change in society. Whether it will turn out to be a wholesale destruction of our current way of life as described by primitivists or just a reduction in complexity and specialisation, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict.

But capitalism increasingly seem like it is being held together with bits of string and with an impending food and energy crisis I can't see the status quo lasting beyond the end of the century.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 01:49

global tetrahedron: Jun 24, 2009

I see a lot of people making vague timeframes for when the poo poo will exactly hit the fan; and often these projections conveniently fall on the tail end of lifespans for most people alive today (i.e. 'sometime later in the century'). It almost seems like people are trying to comfort themselves that at least they won't have to be around to deal with it.

Not anyone in this thread in particular, just a facet of the discussion that I've noticed comes up frequently. As many studies I've seen that say 'by 2100' there are a multitude claiming within decades, or even a generation, which are obviously a much tighter timeframe. Granted, I am not knowledgeable of all the scholarship, just my observation of the kind of language that has entered the discourse.

In an odd and terrible way the 'end of the century' projections are almost comforting to me compared to the 'within a generation' ones, as it 'puts off' the horrible fate that could await. But in my gut I feel like it will happen far sooner than that; i.e. the stuff I've read methane locked under the permafrost pluming forth into the atmosphere.

Ugh. I feel like I check into this thread to hear from some people actually into the phases of acceptance (the mention of the phases of grief up there is an evocative one), and working within and speaking within that vernacular/framework. Even (or especially) bringing up this subject around 'socially conscious' sorts brings kind of shrugs or dismissals or avoidance and it's infuriating. It's like they don't even have the language to even ponder or discuss the actual issue at hand. (I think it's because they are stupid liberals.)

poo poo will hit the fan, no doubt, but this is when something will change, for better or for worse. Probably for the worse, but maybe with a sprinkling of something better? In that way I suppose I'm hopeful, but hopefully in a way that avoids the wide-eyed poo poo that comes out of the mouths of the 'eco friendly'.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 02:34

Your Sledgehammer: May 10, 2010; Don`t fall asleep, you gotta write for THUNDERDOME

Since Dusz is the only one that seems to have a problem and the primitivist critique dovetails nicely with climate change, I'm going to continue the discussion in this thread. If a number of you would prefer otherwise or a mod would like me to take this up elsewhere, I'll be glad to take the discussion to the thread linked a few posts above and would invite all of you who are interested to join me. Anyways, on with the show.

V. Illych L. posted:

If you want to prepare yourself for the collapse of civilisation, go ahead, but it's such an unproductive assumption to argue from that you can hardly blame people who dismiss it outright.

I see where you're coming from, Illych, but this is where you and I diverge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the assumption you're making here is that noncivilized lifestyles are inherently unproductive, and those kind of value judgements and assumptions are exactly the ones that I think all of us need to be questioning.

I'm also not trying to prepare myself for the collapse of civilization, because I think that the idea that you could prepare yourself for something like that is nonsensical. The collapse is going to be uncoordinated, unpredictable, and messy, and may take place on any number of timescales as global tetrahedron mentions. What I am trying to do is gain a greater understanding and appreciation of noncivilized lifestyles, including a practical understanding, as well as trying to show others why it would be unwise to return to an unsustainable mode of social organization in a post-collapse world.

Dusz, your tone is unnecessarily hostile as well as offensive, but there are a handful of things that I feel merit a response:

quote:

Basically, the primitivist society would be inferior.

Do you think you could look a member of the Hadza tribe in the face and say this to them? Assumptions like that one need to be questioned every time, because just like now, they are frequently thrown around without any evidence whatsoever to back them up. Whether or not something is "inferior" is a value judgement, plain and simple, and I personally feel that the one you are making is unwarranted.

A year ago, I would have agreed with you and probably would not have questioned my own view at all, but we've reached a juncture as a species where the unwillingness to ask such questions has proved disastrous. Those of you who favor Dusz's assumption, I would invite all of you to question that assumption and do a little poking around on the net or in a library about immediate return societies. I did so and was deeply surprised and humbled by the counterintuitive conclusions that I came to.

quote:

Their dystopian idea of the future is a tremendous disaster that has to be avoided at all costs.

The dystopic future that you are afraid of is now, and unfortunately, we're all going to have to experience it. However, if you're referring to a post-collapse primitive world itself as a dystopia, then you're woefully missing the kind of wild idealism and optimism that is inherent to the primitivist critique. To illuminate this, a question to ponder - is there any difference between human happiness and the fulfillment of human instincts? When I say "human happiness," I mean the deep sense of contentment that most of us hopefully experience at some point or other in our lives, not the fleeting moment of good feelings I felt when I finally beat Super Mario Bros. 3. When it comes to things like food, shelter, sex, love, social interaction and acceptance, and the ability to explore and display your own unique personality, I think that an open-minded consideration shows that noncivilized societies provide all of the above in a way that is physically, mentally, and emotionally more healthy than civilization.

quote:

Third, the person is a hypocrite.

There is no doubt I am being hypocritical here. However, I see the exploration of a noncivilized lifestyle as a potentially lifelong project, and it is one that I am currently working on.

quote:

There is obviously a need for some kind of alternative civilization in general

"One more big bandaid will surely cure the patient."

The analogy of an extremely ill patient that displays many different symptoms is actually pretty helpful to understanding the depth of the primitivist critique. Ecological destruction is just one of many issues that it addresses.

As I alluded to earlier, anthropologists divide the societies they study into two categories - immediate return and delayed return. Delayed return societies store food, immediate return do not. It's a continuum, with some existing at either end, and some existing in between. What they find over and over again is that delayed return societies invariably produce centralization and hierarchy. A few of the many possible endgames of hierarchy and centralization are things like "too big to fail" banks and sovereign debt crises.

I'd also encourage you to take a look at John B. Calhoun's studies about population density and its effect on behavior. He crammed rats into enclosures with high population densities and the results were things like males becoming hyperaggressive and going on killing sprees. Compare this to civilization and I think you'll see what I'm getting at.

A few off-the-cuff responses to common objections:

You're advocating genocide.

Not at all. Claiming that the ship is sinking is not the same as sinking the ship yourself. My stance towards civilization is and always has been one of peaceful protest and nonviolence.

The average lifespan of noncivilized people is much lower than civilized people.

For one, this is only true of the more recent, highly developed civilizations. Secondly, this disparity in average lifespan can be largely attributed to a higher rate of infant mortality among the noncivilized. A quick game of "Would you rather?": Newborns dying every now and again or 5 billion people dying in an unimaginable apocalypse? Nature shows us that there will always be some mechanism that limits population.

The noncivilized are deeply impoverished.

They do not see themselves as such. They are only materially poor. Material wealth does not track well statistically with happiness.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 04:27

Dr. Gibletron: Oct 27, 2010

Your Sledgehammer,

Do you think you could recommend some books/authors who are pretty prominent amongst primitivists? I just went through a environmental history course at my university, but we didn't really deal with anyone you could label as a primitivist. I have a lot of sympathy with what I've seen you write in this thread, and I'd be interested in doing some more research into authors that offer more detailed critiques.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 04:49

a lovely poster: Aug 5, 2011; by Pipski

Dr. Gibletron posted:

Your Sledgehammer,

Do you think you could recommend some books/authors who are pretty prominent amongst primitivists? I just went through a environmental history course at my university, but we didn't really deal with anyone you could label as a primitivist. I have a lot of sympathy with what I've seen you write in this thread, and I'd be interested in doing some more research into authors that offer more detailed critiques.

Derrick Jensen
John Michael Greer
Daniel Quinn

I think Derek Jensen is probably going to be your best bet. John Michael Greer's blog is pretty good as well.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 04:54

Jenny of Oldstones: Jul 24, 2002; Queen of dragonflies

Dusz posted:

You should go and make a new thread about this. About half of most of the recent pages have been devoted to this very specific subtopic and so a new thread would make sense in most every way.

Your Sledgehammer's posts are entirely relevant to the subject of climate change, and I for one enjoy reading them. Also, you don't appear to be grasping the primitivist viewpoint as it appears in this thread. Your claims of it being like genocide are so misguided I almost didn't comment because you continue to ignore posts trying to set you straight on the subject.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 05:15

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

a lovely poster posted:

Derrick Jensen
John Michael Greer
Daniel Quinn

I think Derek Jensen is probably going to be your best bet. John Michael Greer's blog is pretty good as well.

Just to clarify, there are very few prominent authors who actually identify as primitivist/anarcho-primitivist. None of the authors listed above do. It's a stupid umbrella term which wasn't invented by the people it covers. "Primitivist" is often considered a pejorative term; I know that Quinn openly mocks primitivists.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 05:36

-neutrino-: Nov 4, 2008

Well this thread has kinda confirmed the sneaking suspicion I had that poo poo could not go on forever.

Its sort of like the economic crash(es) which occur as debt is piled up to jack up asset prices. However the environment can't be deleveraged or written off like debt can.

The only question I have left is if hypothetically could a modified smallpox or something remove enough population to 'save' civilization?
I am guessing not.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 05:38

TheFuglyStik: Mar 7, 2003; Attention-starved & smugly condescending, the hipster has been deemed by
top scientists as:
"The self-important, unemployable clowns of the modern age."

Desmond posted:

Your Sledgehammer's posts are entirely relevant to the subject of climate change, and I for one enjoy reading them. Also, you don't appear to be grasping the primitivist viewpoint as it appears in this thread. Your claims of it being like genocide are so misguided I almost didn't comment because you continue to ignore posts trying to set you straight on the subject.

Hell, I'm still waiting on Dusz to answer some of my questions about his reasoning.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 05:47

Execu-speak: Jun 2, 2011; Welcome to the real world hippies!

Your Sledgehammer posted:

Second denial

Well you can count me as someone on the exact same page as you. I can't say exactly when I arrived at my viewpoint but it was sometime over the last few years.

Like you I get called a pessimist or 'doomsayer' whenever I speak my mind, but basically I can't see how we can possibly avert the major and catastrophic changes that are coming. We are beyond the point of no return, no amount of wishy washy personal 'going green' measures, carbon trading or farcical 'Earth Hour' awareness bullshit is going to make a bit of difference.

The way I see it our society has had decades where the problem was apparent, however instead of taking action to mitigate this when it was still possible we sat on our hands and buried our heads in the sand. Now with the problem beginning to bear down on us the time for incremental steps and gradual change is over. Our only hope is to make immediate fundamental changes to the way we live on a global scale, this just is not going to happen. The only way we will change our ways on this scale is when we're forced to, call me a cynical bastard but I'm sorry that is just the reality of us as a species.

I honestly find it disgusting that in 2012 people are still arguing over whether or not human driven climate change is happening at all. Personally I think this is largely due to denialist propaganda shovelled down the worlds throat by the fossil fuel industry and their political backers. Those guys are the real criminals in all this, and fittingly they are not going to be around to see the fruit of their greed.

I think in the future our society right now is going to be viewed as criminal for what it has done.

Execu-speak fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Jun 14, 2012

# ? Jun 14, 2012 06:18

Jenny of Oldstones: Jul 24, 2002; Queen of dragonflies

For anyone wanting to understand what primitivism is, here's a link, one which if you read through calls the genocide statement an attack with no grounding. http://www.rewild.info/anthropik/2005/10/5-common-objections-to-primitivism-and-why-theyre-wrong/

I think it's important to understand that if you really want to carry that conversation further.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 07:40

Flashing Twelve: Mar 20, 2007

What scares me most is how we have absolutely no idea of how this is going to play out. We've simply never had catastrophe on this large a scale before, this is one of those "fundamentally restructure the way humans live" kind of thing. The last time we had an event of this magnitude was probably the Black Death (nearly 700 years ago) and that decimated Europe. And 'all' that did was kill people - we're talking about entire countries suddenly becoming submerged or their farmland turned into deserts. What are these people going to do?

Mass starvation, or completely unprecedented massive population shifts all across the world. These are our options.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 07:59

r.y.f.s.o.: Mar 1, 2003; classically trained

I would kind of like to go back to feeling like our animal natures have not already doomed us. I can't reconcile that urge with the idea that it's better to know an uncomfortable truth than persist in the pleasant fantasy - but if we're hosed anyway, and I can't stop the acceleration, would it be so bad?

The palliative approach seems reasonable but depressing as gently caress.

GG humans.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 09:01

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse
This is quite interesting for a laymans explanation of how poo poo might pan out.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 09:42

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Your Sledgehammer is still in denial. You are falling into the same traps as the other denialists if you think primitivism is an appropriate response. There is no appropriate response. Given past history, I don't doubt that some form of civilization will rise again and fall again. Humanity as a whole is a blind, non-evolving and incompatible part of any ecosystem it touches. There is no form of idealism to combat this. Primitivism has the same air of romanticism as some forms of anarchic government did decades ago, and with about the same realism. It may comfort you, that's fine. Don't confuse it with any kind of answer.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 10:29

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Your Sledgehammer posted:

I see where you're coming from, Illych, but this is where you and I diverge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the assumption you're making here is that noncivilized lifestyles are inherently unproductive, and those kind of value judgements and assumptions are exactly the ones that I think all of us need to be questioning.

I'm not saying it's necessarily unproductive or even super-unpleasant (heavily disabled people would be hosed, though, as would any number of other groups), I'm saying that the political economy of material production will always favour civilisation. It did thousands of years ago, and it would again, even if all civilisation was burned to the ground (which I find seriously hard to imagine even in the very worst case of complete desertification and nuclear war, not with our extremely efficient means of storing information). An agricultural or pastoral society will always be better able to feed itself (speaking purely from calories harvested) than a hunter-gatherer society, and thus marginalise the hunter-gatherers. From a pastoral-agrarian society, the development of productive forces would follow the same patterns as they did historically. If civilisation is environmentally unstable, primitivism is socially so.

quote:

I'm also not trying to prepare myself for the collapse of civilization, because I think that the idea that you could prepare yourself for something like that is nonsensical. The collapse is going to be uncoordinated, unpredictable, and messy, and may take place on any number of timescales as global tetrahedron mentions. What I am trying to do is gain a greater understanding and appreciation of noncivilized lifestyles, including a practical understanding, as well as trying to show others why it would be unwise to return to an unsustainable mode of social organization in a post-collapse world.

If so, you're arguing that propaganda and moral judgements are powerful enough to deter the historical movement of productive forces. This is a fundamentally idealist claim that I find it hard to sympathise with, because if it had been the case I imagine that the medieval clergy would have figured out how to do it.
The initial move to agrarianism was not pleasant for those who undertook it; people didn't end up settling the land because it produced a higher quality of life for the individual. The main force behind the foundation of civilisation was the inherently higher productive efficiency of civilisation as compared to primitive society. This will be the case even after an eventual collapse.

Understand: I totally agree that something fundamentally has to change. Our extreme focus on consumption is only going to lead to tears in the long run. It's just that primitivism is, in a sense, a deeply reactionary ideology, and beyond the obvious moral questions of its implementation I don't think that it's a materially tenable vision of society. Rather than looking back, we need to forge ahead (said the socialist, and everyone gasped in shock and surprise).

# ? Jun 14, 2012 10:39

Fatkraken: Jun 23, 2005; Fun-time is over.

So, lets say civilization IS going to to collapse (and I think there's a reasonable chance it will, maybe within our lifetimes, maybe later). Now what? It's all very well telling people what to think, but a lot of us just want to be told what to DO.

My personal approach is based on a very simple philosophy: "Resistance is the secret of joy".

I've picked my own small battle. The forests are disappearing at an alarming rate, so I'm going to plant some more goddamned forests with my bare goddamned hands. I've found a charity, I volunteer for them and I'm going to try to gradually move towards doing something similar full time, if I can, or to spend more time volunteering if I can't afford to go full time.

Will it make up for the losses occurring elsewhere? Absolutely not. Will it help stave off a collapse? very unlikely. Will the forest I'm helping to nurture even survive through the changes that are happening now and the chaos of a collapse? With a bit of luck they might, in some form, and they are all the more likely to do so for every additional tree I plant. But even if they don't, they're here NOW, they're growing NOW and living and striving, the ecology of this one small corner of the world is improving by increments for as long as it lasts.

I think that's all we can do. Our lives are ephemeral, in 50 years it will be like I was never here at all. While I am, I'm going to do every goddamned thing I can to make a difference, however pointless, however useless, because to do otherwise is to curl up and die right now. Whatever form it takes, resistance is an end unto itself as much as a means to future solutions.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 11:53

the kawaiiest: Dec 22, 2010; Uguuuu ~

V. Illych L. posted:

I'm not saying it's necessarily unproductive or even super-unpleasant (heavily disabled people would be hosed, though, as would any number of other groups)

Yeah that's my main problem with it. It's easy to fantasize about this stuff when you're a healthy dude, but if you have health complications or disabilities, or if you are a woman, there's nothing comforting or good about this whole idea at all.

# ? Jun 14, 2012 12:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 22:13

Ratios and Tendency: Apr 23, 2010; MURALI

While this is going to be a big deal, I get the impression that a lot of people are anticipating some sort of zombie apocalypse?

# ? Jun 14, 2012 12:09

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change thread: tl; dr - We are so screwed

«‹›260 »