|
Spazzle posted:Its probably likely that we'll mostly all survive, just in an increasingly polluted and unstable world. Based on what? I realize that the extreme weather events are going to be much more severe in the equatorial regions but that says nothing about the social unrest that will develop in the first world as a result of economic deterioration. Not to mention massive migrations of people (yes, more severe in Asia but there are still quite a few people in the equatorial regions of the Americas as well) who have lost their means to provide for themselves and their families. I also think that the proliferation of firearms within the US will cause quite a few issues when crime rates begin to pick up as poverty becomes more widespread. I can't seem to envision a scenario in which the issues facing us (dwindling resources, rapid climate change, peak oil) don't trigger some type of major conflict around the world. The drums of war are certainly beating (Iran) and it's becoming more and more clear that the political will necessary to avert these glaring issues is non-existent. TyroneGoldstein posted:There are people that survive today in conditions that would make any first worlder wet themselves. Humans will survive, the standards of living the first world are accustomed to will not.
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/2011121222251949941.htmlquote:Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the country's minister of the environment has said, making it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty. Climate disaster looks more and more inevitable every day.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:It sounds like Canada signed up to do something it had no chance of pulling off. More like conservatives simply refuse to quote:The move does not come as a surprise, especially since Kent said last month that "Kyoto is the past". "it had no chance at pulling off" is exactly what climate disaster keeps looking more inevitable. The political will/ability to prevent climate disaster simply does not exist
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Can we just talk about space please? There are plenty of choices other than this one. Also, while the expansion of our species throughout the solar system/universe would be awesome we simply do not have the technology nor means (and I think in both of these we're very far away as well) to do it in any sort of way that would be beneficial to helping us with today's problems.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 07:59
|
|
|
Yeah I was talking about exploitation too. We don't have the technology nor means. Not to mention the moon doesn't have anything on it that's going to help us meaningfully expand economically. Then again, with current technology nothing is worth getting out of space, even hydrocarbons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 08:25
|
|
|
eh4 posted:So is Jared Diamond right? I think it's fair to say that his view of the world is more accurate than most. Is he "right"? About what?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Im just really frustrated when people say oh you want to change people well sorry that's impossible let's just drat the entire coast against a rising sea it's really the most practical solution you see! Who exactly is saying this?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
Change is inevitable, not impossible. The reason people are pessimistic about that change is because the data is quite bleak.quote:Where does this idea come from? How does one become so cynical that it looks easier to fight the sea than to change our behavior? Have they never seen an example of a society that changed? Can I ask you what changes you think we should make in our behaviors to fix the current situation we're in? a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Dec 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
Squalid posted:oops sorry, I meant to type dam, and I was specifically addressing the post that said we need to accept warming and just armor our coasts against hurricanes Why shouldn't we accept warming? Actually preventing the climate from warming past this point is not a realistic goal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:Basically cus it means accepting that lots of people are gonna die and everything will fall into a sort of perma-depression until either everyone is dead, or enough people are dead that it stabilizes. Again, this is the most realistic scenario given the best information we have at this point. Let's own it and move past it. I know that sounds harsh but we have nothing to gain by mourning the mistakes we've already made.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2011 06:27
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Which is incredibly easy to say as part of the group of rich countries who will - by virtue of geography, infrastructure, and resources - be insulated from the worst effects of climate change even though we are collectively responsible for most of the C02 emissions to date. Incredibly easy to say? Sure. But that doesn't mean I don't think it is an absolutely horrific thing. Firstly I don't really think the US will be insulated from the worst effects of climate change. Yes, tropical regions are going to be impacted more heavily but the outlook for the US in the long term is not anywhere close to good and some of the "worst effects" (like sea level rise on coastal cities) are going to be a very real issue for the United States. Yeah, we're loving responsible. Own it, change your life, and move past it. Carry the burden with you knowingly and let it impact your everyday decisions. Get involved and push for change. All I'm saying is that attempting to prevent the third world's climate from going to poo poo is an unrealistic goal. It's happening whether we like it or not at this point. Yes, it is our fault. No, that doesn't mean we can stop it. quote:No, we shouldn't just shrug and move on. I don't particularly think it's a good idea to condemn 6 billion poor people or so to death by changing environmental conditions because there's nothing we can do. Yes, because I condemned 6 billion poor people Desmond posted:Yeah, I'm not going to defend or explain why I care about the plight of billions of people I've met or haven't met. Maybe you'll defend the idea that everyone else doesn't. TOOT BOOT posted:I guess the solution in a nutshell may very well be 'If your rate of technological progress doesn't allow you to research Geo-scale Engineering and Space Colonization very soon after researching Industrial Society, you deplete all easily extracted resources and drown in your own pollution, ending the game.' I'm kind of a believer in this (in the sense that I think it makes a lot of sense but realize there is no evidence supporting it nor do I think there will be any soon) a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Dec 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Will civilization be able to rise again in a couple thousand years when the climate settles back down? Almost everything we made but plastic bags and bits of metal will be gone by then, along with most of our accumulated knowledge and resources near the surface of the earth. Civilization is almost inevitable as long as humans can continue to sustain agriculture. Maybe even if we can't. I also doubt that this climate shift will lead to our extinction so I'm saying of course.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Deleuzionist posted:If you have a coherent argument to make on the topic of this thread, do it. I haven't laughed yet today. No, he needs two pages to finish his lovely troll.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
ryan8723 posted:What we are going to have to do is start preparing for the worst case scenario. So you mean the deaths of like ~6 billion people? Or complete extinction of our own species? What do you think the worst case scenario is at this point? There is no living preparing for that scenario, there is nothing you can do to prepare for a catastrophe of that scale. The best we can hope for is for our society to collectively wake up and reform in order to live in the reality we've created for ourselves as quickly as possible. What kind of events will need to transpire for that to take place is another question all together, or if it's even possible at all. I don't think we need to shift away from prevention, we just need to be honest about it and stop pretending like energy efficient light bulbs, "green" products, hybrid cars or any other bandaids are a part of the solution to this problem
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Balnakio posted:What is the answer then? It seems you are pushing for a return to pre-industry, what do you suppose we do with the other 6.5 billion people who will be unable to eat in this scenario? Massive renewable high tech industrialization is the only way to reliably support the whole planet while fighting climate change. The 3rd world is not going to stop it push for westernization no matter how much we crow about the environment. We can feed everyone on the planet easily without increasing the amount of industry. The problem is not a lack of food but the lack of an equitable method of distribution. I tend to agree that "the third world" (and everyone else too) is going to keep doubling down on using industrial solutions to solve problems, environmental costs be damned. I'm not particularly convinced there is a real "solution" to climate change. I've said it in other threads, but we're in for suffering and it's best we accept it and move past it. Preventing hundreds of millions from dying due to climate change is near impossible at this point, and almost assuredly impossible if you're looking at solutions from within the current economic order. It's nice to think that we might have the ability to "save" the lives that we're currently ruining but I don't really buy it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Nowa posted:Are we really just going to keep going until we make Earth into some kind of Mars/Venus hybrid? We'll kill ourselves off long before this happens, maybe not though
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
You know we live in a crazy world when the carbon output from the tar sands project isn't the worst case scenario. Not disagreeing with you Konstantin, the environmental impacts of the human race trying to squeeze every recoverable barrel of oil out of the planet are just sad. I'm beyond angry at this point, I just feel pity for my children and their children.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:Now that I think about it, the logic isn't that different from other economically-disastrous decisions, like the collapse of major fisheries that everyone saw coming a mile away. It was allowed to happen because people figured it was better to have a lot of jobs in the short term than a moderate number of jobs in the long term. You mean money, not jobs
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
duck monster posted:The problem is, these companies are in competition to each other. A lumber mill can go "Ok if we reduce the take from an old growth logging we'll preserve the forest for later", but it also means its competition is able to swoop in and grab the business from its reduced output and essentially make the "green" mill redundant. This is why policies must be enacted at the government level. Companies won't take these steps on their own and we shouldn't expect them to. The economic system we live under basically ensures they won't. That doesn't mean capitalism is incompatible with making the kinds of changes we need, just that the government must enforce regulations (which is obvious anyways if you look at the business community) quote:Its like that bullshit argument about doing a carbon tax that "If we do it, other countries will out compete us because they havent signed it yet". It has the unfortunate property of quite possibly being true, even if in the end, if EVERYONE thinks that everyone loses. Very easy to fix, enforce environmental regulations domestically and disallow trade with countries who refuse to do so quote:To me it seems like some sort of paradox in rational behavior that as long as people treat the environment as the chess board of a zero sum game, the selfish actor rationality of each individual player ultimately produces a less rational outcome for everyone. The trick to defeating this stupid chess game is to light the loving thing on fire and refuse to play it. There is nothing rational about what we are doing, it's short sighted, stupid, and a surefire way to bring disaster upon us (which it has done and will continue to do so at an accelerating pace) We should really just move away from using the word rational with regards to human behavior, the distinction between rationality and irrationality doesn't exist as far as I can see a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Feb 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Well, this was pretty much my point when this whole argument got started. Nobody is going to be receptive to the idea that the fact they have kids (or want to have kids) is hurting the environment. But it's obviously making a huge negative impact on the environment in the long term. Clearly you're not going to convince people to stop reproducing, nor should anyone try, really. But that doesn't change the bottom line - it's a bad thing from a global warming perspective. While you're musing about the ethics of having children we are willfullly engaging in large-scale industrial projects (ex: tar sands) that emit more Co2 than a child could ever hope to. Simply put, there are bigger (and much easier) fish to fry than having babies if you want to start talking about ways for society to reduce our emissions. Look, I support family planning initiatives, sex education, wide-scale distribution of birth control, assisted suicide and a whole host of other things that could ease global population growth. Ultimately "but having a child is bad for the environment" is a worthless statement that offers nothing towards a solution. It reads more like some kind of conservative zinger than it does honest discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I mean, it is a zinger, against the ridiculous idea that we should stop doing anything Bad For The Environment. But the ridiculousness of that idea is important. Agreed It's very frustrating to talk to like-minded people who are all too eager to reject technology and society in the pursuit of "nature" which many treat as if it were paradise. Even if nature ever was a paradise (it wasn't) it certainly won't be now, as we've locked in rapid climate change for at least a few thousand years, if not hundreds of thousands (more likely). a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:What I'm worried about is if every single individual on the planet did their best to reduce their ecological impact would we still be able to fix the mess that's already been caused? Without a major technological breakthrough, no. We just don't have a way to get the carbon out of the atmosphere. The icesheets in Greenland and W. Antarctica are melting. There are methane plumes a kilometer across in Russia. Your grandchildren won't know of a time where there was ice in the arctic during the summer. Meanwhile emissions are only increasing and governments are looking less able to collaborate on this problem than ever. "Fixing" the mess shouldn't be a goal any more, surviving it should be. quote:Our industry and large societies may very well be our best tools in not only preventing but also reversing climate change, on top of cleaning up the other messes we've left in the environment. I don't understand why people demonize society and technology just because they're implicated in our current problem. It doesn't change the fact that these two things may very well be our greatest possible weapons against the problem. They are our only real weapons against climate change. They are also one of the major drivers of this problem, which I suspect is why people reject them so quickly. We are doing this to ourselves, it's only natural for individuals who can identify this to eagerly reject our own society once they understand how threatening its actions are. Saying that they are "implicated" really ignores our responsibility in this, which is near 100%. We are the reason the planet is undergoing the 6th largest extinction event. We not only have to embrace technology, science, and nature but we have to collectively understand them at a much deeper level than we do know and recognize their limitations/weaknesses and do what we can to compensate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Look, you can argue that there are easier, more acceptable changes (like driving a Prius instead of an Escalade) This is not what I'm talking about quote:, but having a child has a bigger impact. And you can argue that industry has a bigger impact than anything your average individual does in his life, including having a child. It doesn't change the fact that having a child is one of the biggest negative impacts an individual can have on the environment. You could poo poo up the atmosphere by tying two Escalades together for your 400 mile daily commute for 50 years, and you wouldn't cause as much damage. (If you ask me for proof of this, I will internet punch you in the head) It's not though. Having a child is just not that bad for the environment. It's bad because our society emits a lot and you're lumping together all our emmissions/energy usage and going "see, we use too much per capita" quote:Sure, any "green" improvement at an individual level is helpful, but some have a larger impact than others. It just so happens that choosing not to have children is one of, if not the biggest. By a large margin. Yes, shutting down large-scale industrial projects is going to be easier (not easy) than convincing people not to procreate. Welcome to reality. I'm not some advocate for green industry, trust me. I think it's an absolutely terrible way to go about changing, but not as terrible as the ideas you're putting forth in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:When these start coming in rows, it's finally starting. Define rows? Are you talking about warm winters? Global warming doesn't mean "warm winters", the effects are much greater than that and they have been coming in rows for quite some time now. We are already at 1 degree of warming.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:However, "global warming" is an oversimplification of the process of climate change. It really means more erratic weather patterns worldwide, with a warming trend on a macro level, but in a more local sense every place will be affected differently. It's not really an oversimplification, it's just confusing to people who equate a warming earth with warmer temperatures and nothing more. Climate change is the preferred nomenclature because it's easier to understand, not because its more accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm well aware of the relationship between wealth and birth rates, strudel man. I'm merely demonstrating that in many countries a majority are already forgoing large families. As obvious as that sounds there is literally someone arguing that it is impossible a few posts up I never said it was impossible, I said it would be easier to shut down large scale industrial projects. I'm aware that birth rates can be lowered via the education of women, providing easy access to birth control and increasing the economic conditions of the people. It doesn't really matter if it's easier to shut down large scale industrial projects or to provide the aforementioned things for the developing world, there's no political will to do either. Beyond that, even if we wanted to provide those conditions for the developing world, we simply do not have the resources available to provide that for seven billion people using the current distribution methods our society employs. Also if you're going to misrepresent what I posted (see: "literally someone arguing that it is impossible") you might as well quote me so everyone else can know you're making poo poo up too. a lovely poster posted:Yes, shutting down large-scale industrial projects is going to be easier (not easy) than convincing people not to procreate. Beyond that, why don't you go read what I was originally responding to, someone asking why the media doesn't address these things. I still am not convinced that we need to be drilling the idea that having children is bad for the environment into people's head. Put it this way, we've been having children for a very long time and only recently has our environmental footprint gotten too large. It's not that there's seven billion of us, it's how we've chosen to organize. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Feb 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
Pipe Dreamer posted:I know right! Which is why it was reckless of climate scientists to use our (temporary) drought to make dire predictions about our cities running out of water. Which predictions had Australia's major cities running out of water in 2012? Who is "climate scientists"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Listerine posted:What is IWC? http://forums.somethingawful.com/dictionary.php?act=3&topicid=2342 I don't really see how he's "trolling" though. He actually did post sources to his argument (Tim Flannery's comments from 2007) and as someone who's pretty interested in this stuff it is disheartening to see someone who many consider to be a voice of reason making the types of predictions he is in the news. It's not that I disagree with his assertions in a less definite sense, but when you start saying "within 6 months" or "by next year" you're opening up a whole new can of worms.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Fat Jesus posted:Flannery has zero qualifications in anything to do with the climate. Look, he made some bold and stupid predictions, I'll give you that. Don't take it as an invitation to post your even more stupid assertions like he's in his position to justify a carbon tax. A carbon tax makes sense by the way, unless you have another method of accounting for the carbon dioxide emissions within our economy, which obviously(maybe not for you) have an externalized cost. Heresiarch posted:Climate Change isn't a left vs. right issue. It's a science versus politics issue, and if we start fudging the numbers, then we're no longer on the side of science and we might as well just make poo poo up entirely. I think his point is that making poo poo up entirely would be a much more effective strategy if actual change was the goal. I don't necessarily agree with that nor do I like the implications of such an idea. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Mar 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
We've already seen the initial signs of global warming (we've been warming for quite some time). I suspect there would be a sizable portion of the population denying human caused climate change no matter how bad it gets. There aren't many "the climate isn't changing" people out there, it's more "we're not changing the climate". a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Mar 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The big questions remain: how fast changes will come, how much of these changes are anthropogenic, and how we can best remedy any adverse effects that are coming our way. Your misconceptions aside, we don't have sufficient answers to any of these questions. Simply not true. We have a bunch of really easy answers that society simply isn't willing to move on. How about reducing emissions? Ending subsidies for fossil fuels and putting that money towards less carbon intensive alternatives? These are the answers, you can continue to handwave them away with quote:So your pipe dream of getting emissions reductions is just never going to happen on a global scale. That's why it's a foolish and silly task to be continuing down that road. But that is exactly why you hear scientists speaking out. If we do not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere our planet will continue to warm and continue to trigger feedback loops that we're already seeing the starts of (methane thaw, melting ice sheets, the loss of the arctic sea ice, rising sea levels) You're probably right though, we can't reduce emissions through the existing political processes in place. Hence "we are so screwed" in the thread title. That doesn't mean answers don't exist, it just means the political will required to actually provide a solution is simply non existent. Personally I don't really think much of anyone has any real control over society at this point. The inertia of our past decisions is going to carry us into disaster and while I remain hopeful some magical change will happen, I simply don't see it. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Apr 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Which leads to geo-engineering -- the only way we're going to stay under that 2 degrees. Again there's a growing and quite severe debate there about whether or not we even engage in further geo-engineering of our planet and its atmosphere but more likely than not some country is going to start loving around with things whether the global community agrees with it or not. I tend to agree. If society doesn't collapse under the weight of the issues facing us, SO2 will almost inevitably be deployed by multiple nations as coastlines begin to be seriously threatened and weather events become even more severe.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 07:17
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Or be privileged and live in a first world country. poo poo is gonna get really hosed up but most of the first world will be mostly ok, its not going to be mad max, and depending on how it all shakes out it may just be the third world that gets even more completely hosed over. Define mostly ok
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
Except that "developing countries" (which ones? because let's be honest, they are all in very different situations) are largely situated around the equator and will be absolutely ravaged by climate change. For example, pastoral peoples living in eastern Africa simply won't be able to use the agricultural methods that you're so eager to applaud because their environment simply won't support it. In the long term (pick a time frame) they are even more hosed. Remember, we see the potential climactic changes in the 21st century as catastrophic. They are only going to continue to accelerate as time goes on. There is not a period of stability anywhere near on the horizon. We're talking tens of thousands of years at the least. Idolizing "old ways of living" as if they offer some sort of solution for our current problems just needs to stop. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 23:39 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Not to mention the deaths of literally billions of innocent human beings, and of knowledge in general. Of course, don't you dare claim that primitivists would be complicit in it, don't you dare label their proposal with the proper term - a genocide. I don't think you really know what genocide means and it's not like primitivists blindly endorse the deaths of billions of people. The reason they take action like this is BECAUSE of the imminent death of even more people. I'm not a primitivist, but I will say that there's a lot more logic to their ideology than the average western neoliberal who actively endorses in-progress genocides like that of the Palestinians in Israel (this is just one example, there are countless and many are perpetrated/endorsed/ignored by 'liberals') while condemning other ideologies for "promoting genocide" in spite of the fact that I've never seen a primitivst call for anything like genocide. Dusz posted:As a result they're the enemies of civilization and as an extension, humanity as a whole. You do realize that not all of humanity exists under the umbrella of civilization, nor has it ever, nor will it ever. That moral outrage that you feel when primitivists suggest that the long term plan which results in the least deaths might be moving away from industrialism prevents you from actually understanding their position. Balnakio posted:Earth is just a planet even if we wreck it, we are talking a time frame of hundreds of years we can spread out into the solar system if the survival of our species requires it (it does). We actually can't do this. What makes you think the colonization of the solar system is anywhere near? Do you realize that the space program is built on top of the currently collapsing capitalist system? We are not going to move seven billion people in to space. You think ending industrialization would be genocide and instead advocate that once we've "wrecked" Earth we should just colonize the solar system. Hmm, I wonder who's going to get that opportunity. Not that it matters, since colonization isn't going to happen during this civilization's lifespan and even bringing it up is laughable. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 12:56
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:Except that's not the long term plan which results in the least deaths. Gripping argument. I actually agree with you (which I mentioned in my post) although the current neoliberal approach will end in much more bloodshed than a primitivist's would. We need radical change. Primitivsists offer a method of that change, albeit one I disagree with. I still respect that a lot more than the status quo "don't worry, humanity will figure this one out!" while admonishing those trying to solve the problems your genocidal ideology is driving as genocidal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Even more people? In case you don't know, the estimate of human beings during the tribal era was maybe 1 percent of what it it is right now. How much more than the death of 99% of humankind are you talking about? Also do you think death by gross mismanagement, neglect and oversight is genocide? You seem to be all up in arms with semantics so you could clarify that for me. Gross mismanagement, neglect and oversight that leads to death? Hmm, that sounds awfully familiar... Oh yeah it's a criticism of any ideology you disagree with! I could say the same about your own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide quote:Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" Which ethnic, racial, religious, or national group do you see Anarcho-primitivists calling for the genocide of? quote:They endorse the death of billions of people that would be involved in the transition from a civilization society to a tribal society. How much closer to genocide do you have to get? Nobody endorses the deaths of billions. Some people view it as an inevitability. These are not the same things. quote:Also where on earth do you get the idea I endorse Palestinian genocide, that is some unimaginably bizarre logic. Is that that the "lot more logic" you're talking about, that these people supposedly have? Our current civilization has genocided countless people and killed millions, if not billions, over the course of history. Meanwhile, anarchoprimitivists simply don't call for genocide, in spite of what you've repeated throughout this thread. quote:I don't understand the first sentence at all. "Umbrella of civilization", what is that supposed to imply? It could imply one of many different things. It's supposed to imply that an enemy of civilization is not necessarily an enemy of humanity because not all of humanity belongs to civilization. quote:Also, where are you getting the idea I don't understand their position? Have I misrepresented their opinions in any way? You are imagining a bias that doesn't exist except in an incredibly narrow-minded ideological framework. Yes, you've said they advocate genocide, which they do not. the kawaiiest posted:I don't think humanity will figure this out. I also don't think that there is a solution at all, which is why I'm not offering one. We can't "live in harmony with nature". We can't convince everyone to start using nuclear power because that's not really in the best interest of the rich and powerful, who are in control of virtually everything. We can't use renewables because they're not viable. We can't convince Americans to stop driving everywhere, or the Chinese to stop burning coal. There is literally nothing that anyone can do. I agree a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Just to clarify, you are currently trying to defend mass manslaughter with a semantics argument. So to be clear, are you trying to say that the "equal opportunity" aspect of the manslaughter that the primitivists hope will be carried out makes it more moral? Otherwise, I see no reason why you are arguing over this at all except to shirk away from the ethical conclusions of primitivism with a non-argument. If anything, genocide is too restrictive and mild a term for what the primitivists hope will happen, as the mass dying they hope for is arbitrary in addition to being unnecessary and humongous. What manslaughter? I don't understand what makes you think Anarchoprimitivists would simply tear everything down overnight and let the cards fall where they may. Over a sufficient time period it's concievable that it be done without a massive loss of life. It boggles my mind that people who critique other economic or political systems seem to think proponents of an ideology want to snap their fingers and simply make all the changes at once. Did it ever occur to you that other people might actually care about loss of life?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
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. 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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
Dr. Gibletron posted:Your Sledgehammer, 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
|
|