|
Pellisworth posted:A lot of scientists prefer the term "climate change," myself included. "Global warming" is not a particularly good description of the actual changes expected to occur. Yes, the Earth as a whole will get warmer, but some areas will be colder, drier, wetter, stormier, underwater, etc. For the general public who may not be adequately educated on the subject, "global warming" implies it's simply going to get warmer everywhere and that is just not true and somewhat misleading.
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Good science doesn't need alarmist rhetoric. Now that we're done patting ourselves on the back, I should edit this derail with some content. I'm joining in on submitting oral and written commentary to the independent review process that is doing the environmental assessment for the Northern Enbridge Gateway pipeline project. I just saw this news bit today that pleases me to no end: quote:California announced on Wednesday it would support the European Unions’s plan to label fuel retrieved from Canada’s oil sands reserves as “dirty fuel” at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, Reuters reports. On Oct. 4, the European Commission approved a proposal to label oil sands-derived fuel as highly harmful to the environment in a ranking system that allows fuel suppliers to identify the most carbon-intensive options. California has already introduced a system that goes a step further, allowing consumers to choose which fuel they use based on these labels. Alberta’s reserves have been a constant target of international criticism due to their potential effect on global warming. Oil derived from oil sands is said to emit more CO2 than coal or regular crude oil. Canada, in partnership with the oil industry, has lobbied against Europe’s ranking system, which it says is unfair and “not based on science.” It's great because Enbridge's PR is being very low and tricky right now. They actually bought one of the Gitxsan hereditary chief's agreement to speak for all of the Gitxsan First Nation in support of the pipeline project. Huge controversy ensued due to the fact that the majority of Gitxsan hereditary chiefs and people, and actually most First Nations, strongly oppose the pipeline proposal--and they say this one cheif, Elmer Derrick, has no legal ground to support the pipeline or to speak for the Gitxsan Nation. Yet, Enbridge keeps plodding along with their message that First Nations are in support of their pipeline. This "agreement" came shortly after First Nations declared a ban on tar sands oil exports through their lands and coastal waters during a one-year anniversary of Save the Fraser Declaration. 130 bands have signed this declaration. This is just a small fight in a bigger fight against not only climate change but all that comes with it, including resource extraction, deforestation, water pollution, etc. Edit: by field, I mean I work amongst scientists who study climate effects and other problems related to the Fraser River and shorelines of BC, Canada. Jenny of Oldstones fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Dec 9, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Which field? There are a few relevant to this issue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 02:32
|
|
climate buddy
|
err posted:I was being sarcastic, but thanks for sperging out. Politically, eh. I'm hoping a certain president, if getting re-elected, will hanker down instead of caving in on certain issues just to garner votes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 06:14
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:The problem isn't just that the media is bought and paid for (though it is), but that the message from both sides is poo poo. It's become a black and white religious issue, and people on both sides are making equally stupid claims and making it incredibly easy for opposite sides to ignore eachother. In the long run, those aware of climate change are closer to the truth than those saying nothing is wrong, but the sheer amount of catastrophism that goes on just leads to bad scientific journalism. I feel that media is burdened as it ever has been. We need more Edward R. Murrows in this age. I personally like Dan Rather and always have. But mainstream media sadly tries to appeal to mainstream thinking and corporate pressure. Few and far between does media really have an independent, scientifically accurate report, and if it isn't funded properly it is not as well advertised. Scientists also don't always do a great job at explaining science to laymen. And peer reviewed or scholarly stuff is almost always expensive if you to try to buy the articles. Then we have to rely on reporters to try to translate things to the public, and hey if they are part of a media outlet that likes to spin things, you'll get all kinds of accounts but the true account. quote:I've been called clueless for saying maybe humanity's involvement isn't as huge as we think it is if we contrast it to other ice-age-ending and mass extinction events not by people who have the slightest loving idea how to look at the science, but by people who read a few articles or listened to some bloggers or loving Al Gore. I personally can see some problems with Al Gore, but at least he attempted to bring a problem to the public in layman's terms and got people thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:We don't know poo poo about the rate of change relative to previous change events, and this is one of the areas there's a lot of misunderstanding. Outside of meteoric events, the assumptions on time of climate change are largely "It happened around here". The argument we're seeing is that relative to previously recorded rates, climate change is accelerating as time goes on. This line of thinking operates on the idea that the rate of change is linear with time, which isn't the case. Our contribution is to compound an already occurring situation, and if you think us coming out of an ice age is an occurrence of the most recent era of industrialized human history then I hate to tell you this but you're wrong. I hate when interesting threads like this devolve into petty debates over issues of semantics and misunderstanding or reading comprehension problems when it's clear that we're already on the same side here, at least I think. Unless you think anthropogenic climate change is not real and we would be experiencing the same rate of modern day climate changes without it?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Wafflehound, I have trouble regarding you as the scientist you claim you are. Your arguments make no sense. Do you or do you not believe in anthropogenic-caused climate change? Can you at least accept that the for-profit resource extraction industry does not have the environment in mind, and that very often they are the chuckleheads that lack the responsibility to do things without polluting--and this in and of itself is a huge problem? Those are my only questions to you. You seem to go against modern scientists and accepted data and results, meanwhile trying to make other posters feel stupid. I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand some very basic ideas grounded in geology. Geology is not the only science involved with climate change nor pollution. There's a much larger holistic approach to understanding climate change than what you're offering up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Geochronology and paleoclimatology are hardly basic areas of geology. Thanks for clarifying the other stuff. Please realize, however, that I think people posting here have the reading comprehension skills to understand the topic at hand, and you've spent pages acting all high and mighty as if you are the only one capable of "getting it". Please recognize that despite your college degree, there are others here who have studied the topic and various aspects of it for years as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
There's a lot that individuals can do, despite feeling as though there's nothing we can do. 1. If you have the means, walk, bike, or take public transit. You use less oil that way, and if everyone did these things (some cannot due to distance and/or lack of transit infrastructure), there would be less demand for oil. 2. Speaking of less demand, individuals are what drives production and supply, so we can do without a lot of things that create this consumer culture where we're buying crap we don't need. 3. Figure out where your local politicians stand on environmental causes, and vote for those who have strong environmental policy. 4. Volunteer for local groups that help in some way, even if you're not going to cure climate change. For instance, I volunteer for a local group and help with water samples and analysis. The group is all volunteer-driven and ranges from students to scientists. Anyone can volunteer. 5. To understand the science behind climate change and other environmental issues, just start reading. Do not read corporation news, as they generally greenwash. Read scholarly articles, textbooks, and good science journals. Realize that reporters don't always get it right. There's no harm in taking general classes either, even if you don't work toward a degree. 6. It's good to get involved in some activism, and some protesting can change social climate. However, I've never felt comfortable joining in marches and chants; if you're not into that, find out what issues your local habitat faces and work on solving them. You can volunteer for a non-profit, go to public hearings, and register to make commentary on independent environmental panels and reviews regarding development in your area. There's a lot going on here in Canada, but you often have to do your own research and find out how to get involved and what's open to public commentary. Edit: I'm also wary of environmental activism that is not wholly based on science. I've seen groups in my local area of Vancouver, for instance, that I generally agree with, but some of their rhetoric is embarrassing and often they tangent off to unfair accusations. To me these groups can be equally as harmful as corporate greenwashing doing the same thing on the other end of the spectrum. Just an example: recently a degraded sample of wild salmon taken from Rivers Inlet was found to have 2 of 48 salmon infected with ISA. Never before has wild Pacific salmon been shown to have ISA. There's also a judicial inquiry on the decline of wild salmon, and they had closed but are now reopening for three more public meetings later this month. A later analysis on the same sample showed no ISA. Then a later report came out that showed that studies from a few years ago listed that several wild salmon (about 177 I think) had been infected with ISA. I'm still waiting to hear why that report was never published. One spokesperson said something about false positives. ISA is a virus that only affects farmed Atlantic salmon (though has evidently also been found in trout, which are asymptomatic), but suddenly you had a few groups claiming that ISA would kill Pacific salmon and cause their extinction. So far we don't know that. Pacific salmon might not be affected the same way as Atlantic salmon. I thought maybe that we could await studies and more testing before jumping to conclusions, and so I've been wary of some groups. Another problem is that BC is pretty bad at transparency and even enforcing its own environmental laws. The DFO scientists are often suspect in releasing reports and findings. It's true that if Pacific salmon in the wild were starting to get ISA, and also if it started to kill them off, we'd be seeing a possibility of extinction, but there's no reason to jump to that conclusion until we know more. However, if it turns out that ISA is degrading wild salmon stocks, aquaculture is going to be red in the face, and it's going to be bad news. It's also likely that declining fish habitat, warming waters, ocean acidification, and other things are causing the decline of wild salmon, including over-fishing. Sorry for the long-winded example, but it's important to research stuff before joining organizations that are based on rhetoric instead of science, even if they have good intentions. 7. Get outside and get to know your local watershed, terrain, and environmental history. I have found this instills a respect for nature and a desire to protect it. Hike around, get to know what species of flora and fauna are in your area. 8. Check out meetup.com. I've found some really active groups that get out every weekend doing things like hiking, removing invasive species, planting native trees, etc. 9. Don't litter, don't dump into rivers and onto land, organize cleanups in your area, don't dump chemicals down your drain, etc. 10. Back to the less consumerism, don't buy throwaway stuff, especially objects that don't break down, like polymers. It's kind of corny and obvious, but take a non-bpa container with you and fill it with water when needed. 11. If you have land, grow your own veggies, raise your own chickens, and so on. I guess these are pretty obvious, but there's a vast amount of things every single person can do. We are not going to solve climate change. Climate change is I believe past the point of stopping. But that doesn't mean we should throw our arms up in the air with abandon and in defeat, and continue with our history of pollution. Small changes can be significant, and every effort counts. Jenny of Oldstones fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
Just posted in the Canada thread about this too, but it's time for a lot of people to start actively taking measures to block further oil sands development. Most First Nations and people in BC are against the Northern Gateway project, and there's recently been some fuss about a Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion that held no public hearings, even when requested to by several mayors and environmental groups. They are now increasing oil shipped via the Burrard Inlet each year. What we're going to start seeing is way more exports via our coastlines, especially if the Keystone pipeline doesn't get approved. Whether through land or by sea, either way is bad. Oil sands is bad news, and if Harper is going to embarrass Canada by doing nothing to reduce emissions, the people really have to step up and start protesting this crap.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
I don't think you should leave, Wafflehound. I'm sure you have a lot of knowledge about some things which are useful to this thread. I didn't mean to imply you worked for industry earlier, though I did ask because a lot of industry downplays stuff like human involvement in climate change as well as stuff like fracking. Definitely wasn't an accusation or implication though. I don't think any debate is good without some degree of tension, but no disrespect meant on my part, even with different viewpoints. However, I don't notice anyone yelling really, no more so than yourself, to be fair. To add to the practical consequences described above, I think we shouldn't look solely at climate change in and of itself without configuring in contributing factors of resource extraction and pollution, which work in tandem to gently caress the planet and raise potential for positive feedbacks. A good way to really get an idea of the vast amount of changes already being caused by climate change is to set up a daily digest or news alert from any science journal or mag. The Georgia Straight intertidal mussels and barnacles having to move down to cooler waters and being threatened by stars that prey in the lower waters, greenhouse gas records set, sea ice melting, etc. Every day it is something new, from vast changes to tiny organism changes. The bigger practical consequences I think will be food shortages, dirty water, more disease, and resource wars. I think oil will stop being as important as it is now, and more basic essentials like water and food will be in demand. Edited for clarity. Shouldn't post when tired. Jenny of Oldstones fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Dec 13, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
Alctel posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 10:50
|
|
|
I think it's a good idea to always work with a knowledgeable organization when attempting reforestation. You're not going to plant a trillion trees all at once. Sometimes the trees are grown to restore degraded land and replenish soils with nutrients, to be used in sustainable timber lands, to provide additional food by growing healthily maintained fruit trees, and to provide nitrogen-fixing trees. There are also ways to grow certain trees within rows of crops to promote better water-retention or irrigation. Personally I think Eco-Libris and Rainforest Alliance may be the best orgs to support.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:So in some bizarre political alignment, the Republicans might have just killed the Keystone Pipeline
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2011 05:24
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Lets be honest here. People in the first world don't care about global warming because they don't need to care. The average first worlder cares about the third-world about as much as he cares about anything that he doesn't directly interact with, zero.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Good luck getting the first world to ever do anything about climate change then. Heaven knows I'm tempted to sit there with you and say "I shouldn't have to explain why we need to care about people dying
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2011 23:38
|
|
", but it doesn't do anything except make us feel good about ourselves. And if that's all you want, not caring about the third world accomplishes it equally well.
|
Powercrazy posted:I don't know if you are serious or not, but Iceland and most islands are goign to be the first places where food stops arriving. On a different subject, there's a couple new pieces out in the last week about methane: New York Times Washington Post
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:"Sir, as your doctor I must warn you; unless you undergo treatment we can predict with 66% certainty that you'll have 1-6 years left to live."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:For anyone who hasn't seen it, Hulu currently has the NOVA episode about the Antarctic Secrets Beneath the Ice available for streaming. Pretty interesting, different research shows water levels rising between 12-60 feet based on the amount of heating predicted to happen by the end of the century. duck monster posted:Actually thats the whole chinese-finger-trap nature of this fucker. A lot of these problems are only solvable by expending more energy, and "more energy" is what got us into this fix in the first place
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2011 10:35
|
|
|
In Vancouver, public transit doesn't seem to have a status thing attached to it. Everyone uses it. We use it even though we have a car too. In the states, most cities are lacking public transit, though Chicago and NYC seem okay. You get a lot of urban sprawl with no transit, requiring you to drive. It's a byproduct of the car and oil industry infrastructure. I wanted to support Sledgehammer's viewpoint that it's not just climate change we need to worry about. Climate change working in tandem with resource depletion, pollution, and a huge population WILL change our lifestyles drastically at some point in time because it is impossible for our planet to support the consumerist population it has forever, and there is no movement big enough at the moment to curb our unsustainable lifestyles. I'm actually editing a fictional book I wrote that is set in such a quite changed world near the end of the century. It's not all gloom and doom, because there are hopefully interesting characters who, despite hardship and struggle, are learning how to not repeat mistakes. If anyone's interested in a review e-copy, let me know. I'm still doing quite a bit of revision though. Also, I want to recommend another book that inspired some of the motifs in my book, and that is Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. http://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-An-Adventure-Mind-Spirit/dp/0553375407 Ishmael is basically one long Socratic dialog between a man and a talking gorilla that deductively and systematically reveals how we got to the point we're at today. The novel is a philosophical one, of course, but it would make a good summer read.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
https://vimeo.com/19364230 has Daniel Quinn talking about totalitarian agriculture (vs. the regular act of growing things we eat) as being the culprit in the agricultural revolution, which also, in other books, he says is not something that happened once upon a time but something that is continually occurring. Totalitarian agriculture seems like a selfish mindset that leads to the type of unsustainable farming practiced widely today. Some have called totalitarian agriculture a moral event, not a technological one. My background studies were in anthropology, so early on I got used to the idea that before agriculture was horticulture, which hunters and gatherers practiced at times too. (Obviously horticulture still exists, but also this type of agriculture has a place in transitory history between nomadic hunter-gathering and agriculture.) The way I learned, and horticulture is often defined differently, is that horticulture generally was the smaller-plot planting of mixed crops as opposed to agriculture's large-plot planting of mono crops. Horticulturists also plant(ed) a wide variety of crops, including fruit trees that would help with irrigation, and they use(d) methods to enhance soil productivity. I imagine many of us who are growing foods as subsistence farming to a degree fall into the horticulture camp, which is something probably humans of all times have participated in and which should not be confused with totalitarian agriculture, which Quinn explains well in the video above. There was also not an enormous surplus leftover in horticulture. Quinn's view is that over-produced food actually motivates an over-produced population, which in turn promotes a larger population--an endless cycle, leading to where we are today. His views also define pre-totalitarian agriculturists as Leavers (people who take only what they need) as opposed to totalitarian agriculture society as Takers (they take anything they want, way more than they need: a big surplus). The Leavers, he argues, respect the fundamentals of ecology: competition and co-existence. The Takers, he argues, do not respect those fundamental laws and thrive on imposition, ecologically, economically, and even religiously.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
froglet posted:Old growth forests tend to capture carbon at a slower rate than new growth forests. That's not to say old growth forests aren't important, just that significant gains could potentially be made by adding to existing forests with new stock or by establishing new forests. I'm not doubting you, but do you have a source for the old-growth forests capturing carbon at a slower rate? I'm just curious about it and was under the impression that old-growth forests continued to capture carbon more so than previously thought. This article states: quote:All told, by Luyssaert's calculations the relatively small remaining stands of old-growth forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest as well as Canada and Russia consume "8 to 20 percent of the global terrestrial carbon sink," or roughly 440.9 million tons (0.4 gigatonnes) of carbon per year. I've also seen a study recently showing that seagrasses may be better at capturing carbon than trees.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
froglet posted:The theory that I've heard (and it's entirely possible I am incorrect/looking at the wrong studies) is that trees absorb the most carbon during the first 50-odd years and absorb less after that. Then when the tree dies and rots (or burns), carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Theoretically this would mean that it'd be more efficient to expand existing forests/establish new forests for the purpose of harvesting the wood every few decades and replanting (if the goal was to capture as much carbon as possible). The first article seems suspect to me, but I think the idea that old-growth forests is carbon neutral is an old one. Even if these forests do start to slow down on capturing carbon (not sure they do), they still continue to store a ton of carbon. Old-growth forests aren't just about the trees but the soil and other vegetation, including fungus, which altogether is a huge carbon sink (more so than younger forests) and home to some critical and unique habitat. Old-growth forests also have climax species and withhold a lot of biodiversity, not to mention that some of old conifers are fire-resistant and will outlive invasive species. The seagrass study I read is here: http://scienceblog.com/54760/seagrasses-can-store-more-carbon-than-forests/. It's been sourced a few other places too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
It's crazy to propose the notion that anyone in this thread endorses the death of any one person, not to mention billions of people. The only "primitive" scenarios are those that realistically look at the possibility that due to climate change, dependent-on-oil resource extraction, pollution, disease, loss of viability of soil due to mono-farming/terrible deforestation, and a multitude of other problems, that eventually these factors will wipe out a good number of people on our planet. It's a what-if, not an "oh boy this would be awesome if we could get back to our roots" scenario. If people like that exist, I wouldn't doubt it, but I haven't seen any in this thread. Anyone talking about sustainable agriculture, doing with less, etc., (at least I'm speaking for myself) is not an idealist, but a realist. Our current system does not work. You would just need to read the news to see how the current effects of climate change, terrible environmental policy in regards to industry, and pollution are already devastating to people and other species. I put primitive in quotes, because technologically, the past is not less or more advanced in capability than our present.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I've switched to a vegetarian diet, but hot drat I love shrimp, fish, other seafood, and fried chicken. And occasionally I crave a cheeseburger or a good roast pork cooked with apple and onion. However, I have remained disciplined in this diet. I'm more against eating meat when it has been factory farmed, but am okay with it being raised on an organic or small farm, where there is more care toward animals. It's just that sometimes that meat is harder to find. I've given myself goals/dates where I can go cheat on this diet and shop at organic markets. This will be on holidays, etc. But in the meantime I am doing okay with just veggies. Can't wait til my garden is ready for harvest too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:I'm not really arguing that it won't happen. I'm just saying that the people who like the idea of primitivism probably haven't really thought about how it would affect women, children, disabled people and the elderly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:Just because I'm not a fan of primitivism doesn't mean I like things as they are now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:No, I'm simply stating that it's not going to be any different or any better for these groups which I and my husband happen to be a part of, and therefore I don't endorse it any more than I endorse the way things are now. It's not that simple. It's like you think I have to pick a side and agree 100% with everything that they say. No, I can be right in the middle. I can say yeah, I'd love it if we could all live in Earthships and grow our own food, but I'd like there to be some infrastructure in place for things like health care. You are crazy if you think that our collision course with climate catastrophe is going to have any health care infrastructure in place to either deny or support in the first place. (You should read up on how more primitive societies take care of their family and friends though.) It's like we're on completely different wavelengths. It doesn't matter what you agree with or don't agree with, because unless some major technology comes about to save this earth from its self-destruction, our smug stances on the internet today are going to have absolutely no consequence on the reality of the future. Nobody in this thread has advocated this extreme anarcho-primitivist ideal that you and a few others are mistakenly understanding--it is impossible, negligent, and wrong to purposefully de-industrialize the world because there would be too much death. That's not the argument. The argument at least that I've understood in this thread is that if we can do it now, we should learn to develop agriculture and other adaptable technology (again, more "primitive" technology doesn't mean stupider technology) that can enable more people to survive by adaption and self-sustenance in the future. It's complete irony that the de-industrialization imagined by anarcho-primitivists may happen anyway, but not by them: by the consumerist population and industry, which pokes fun at simpler ways of life. And that's kind of the point of this thread: that unless we get a magical fix-it-all technology or two, we're on a course to self-destruction. What is there to do about it? It's not realistic to imagine we can always live in the comfort we do today. Also, I am still at a loss of why you think women and children would suffer more in a back to the basics lifestyle? I'm quoting this from wikipedia, but could probably find scholarly articles if you were interested; I just need to get some dinner now  quote:Anarcho-primitivists describe the rise of civilization as the shift over the past 10,000 years from an existence within and deeply connected to the web of life, to one psychologically separated from and attempting to control the rest of life. They state that prior to civilization there generally existed ample leisure time, considerable gender equality and social equality, a non-destructive and uncontrolling approach to the natural world, the absence of organized violence, no mediating or formal institutions, and strong health and robustness. Anarcho-primitivists state that civilization inaugurated mass warfare, the subjugation of women, population growth, busy work, concepts of property, entrenched hierarchies, as well as encouraging the spread of diseases. They claim that civilization begins with and relies on an enforced renunciation of instinctual freedom and that it is impossible to reform away such a renunciation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:Because of significantly higher rates of infant mortality and death during childbirth without proper medical treatment or food source stability. They would suffer much, much more under such a lifestyle than they do now. As would everyone else. I didn't say new societies wouldn't form. What I said was that future societies won't have access to the modern healthcare we have today. That's just a guess though, since current healthcare is based upon large-scale pharmaceutical research and development, health care equipment, and other things that wouldn't be available in the scenario that primitivists often imagine if a large-scale collapse occurred. If that were the case, all humans might suffer more (not just women and children). My question was in response to why kawaiist said there would be certain groups within populations that would suffer more; I was just trying to understand why those groups would be singled out as opposed to everyone. On the other hand, we understand more about nutrition, medicine, and science today than did older civilizations, giving us a start. I'm trying to debate this in the context of what the turn of the century or later might look like in worst-case scenarios (i.e. industry continues expanding non-renewable use of energy, for instance, which it is). You can't compare such a grand-scale scenario with black death, sorry. Talk about a vacuum. Edit: nobody's talking about a utopia. Kawaiist, please read up on this subject in previous links/reading/books offered. You are speaking a different language that I can't reconcile with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:
If you don't want to discuss, that's cool with me. I'll also take your insult with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 04:57
|
|
nevermind this whole discussion, you just don't get it.
|
Zachack posted:I read the link you posted. It said the following: You must be talking about the link I posted three pages ago debunking the genocide thing? Yes, terrible background, I agree. I haven't read that whole page and was not basing any current discussion on health care based on anything else that page or site had to say. It just seemed to offer a summary of why primitivsts weren't advocating genocide. Might as well reference it from their mouths not mine, because I am not a primitivist. I have only read at length some posts and references in this thread, along with some Quinn books. There are a ton of other links in this thread to look at, and plenty of book recommendations. Now we are on a new discussion about health care. The only link I posted regarding this discussion was a brief wiki reference, and I had a caveat that there was probably more reliable discussion on it elsewhere, but I didn't have time to look at the moment. When asking specifically about why certain groups would be more affected, it was not an attack, but a genuine curiosity. What I'm getting in return is I should have a love-in and drink coke 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:Of course, even if a total societal collapse occurred (a very big if), why would people choose primitivism over forming a less-developed society? Even if oil disappeared overnight, why wouldn't people be interested in banding together in something resembling, say, a 19th century level of development? Perhaps not mass production of antibiotics on an industrial, national scale, but small-scale production from sample of penicillin. People are going to strive for a higher level of technological development, not say "gently caress civilization it always collapses" and give up entirely. Primitivism entails genocide, it's just genocide by means of neglect. Sure, it would be pretty drat awesome to strive for good human health care. Oh, and you're now moving on to the whole genocide thing, which has already been debunked in this thread. So I'm not going there. You could say our current system is genocide by neglect since we're not really taking care of our resources in such a way to continue to support the planet's people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Disagreement is fine, but I'd really appreciate it if people would stop putting words in my mouth or making assumptions about the position I am taking. Anyone turning this worldview around into something it's not by saying people like me do not care about women, infants, society, etc., and grossly comparing similar views to genocide is just so out there it is hard to get riled up about it because it makes absolutely no sense and is just wrong. Same thing with the "oh you silly tree-hugger" spiel, which is just an echo-chamber of platitudes when you can't think on your own.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:Sledgehammer, Desmond, troika: my post is definitely not a good description of any primtivism; I was more generally trying to describe why I feel that the collapse of the status quo would cause especial harm to the people who already have least. I was more empathizing with theKawaiiest, and thinking about my own underprivileged family. Someone mentioned anecdotal "evidence" of Brazilians they met who wished for modern health care. The primitivist viewpoint is that without introduction to outsiders, would they have the diseases that they do or the poor living conditions that may be due to outsiders coming in and burning down their rainforests or polluting their water resources, taking away their way of life? I don't know the whole situation, but all things must be taken into consideration, not the least of which is the underlying fact that earlier cultures had no frame of reference from their lifestyle to larger modern societies and health care. And once they are assimilated, the damage is done and therefore to deal with outside disease/lack of resources, that is when they start needing health care. Need I remind anyone of the awfulness of Europeans in assimilating native Americans? Same thing happened in Canada. Abuses took place. Disease was introduced. Water supplies were polluted. Land was taken. Children in Canada were taken out of their homes and put into residential schools. Right now several First Nations living in what has been dubbed the Great Bear Rainforest (critical habitat with rare species, and also a home to some of the world's largest salmon-bearing rivers) will most likely have their homes threatened by supertankers and oil spills because they still don't really seem to have complete rights to their original way of life and land as they should. Outsiders have completely ruined some of these First Nations' lives, to the point that yes, they currently do need modernized form of health care. They would have rather been left alone. I've been around many and canoed with them, have been invited to great feasts. I've attende many rallies where they are protesting fish farms, oil sands pipelines, etc. I've met an elder woman who has cancer,who lives in a town near the Athabasca oil sands, a town which has had a 40% increase in cancer since the oil sands have been operating. She told her story in tears saying it was too late to go back to the old ways. Ridiculous. As far as how the disabled, the old, the young, the woman will be taken care of without modern health care? Humans are going to be how they've always been, where you'll see some have compassion and some don't--those who have compassion will take care of those around them. Modern health care has its praises sung here in this thread, but the truth is that many many are denied health care even in the supposed strongest country in the world, while many more are taken care of in those terrible socialist countries (like my own :smug). The point is, there is no guarantee to anything in this world. There are some interesting reports on egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer societies: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways-three-complementary http://uncgsoc101.wordpress.com/module-8-gender-stratification/part-2/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Winter Rose posted:Can I ask how you've been accomplishing your transition? It's an idea I've been considering. It is only a transition. The reason I said I am not a primitivist earlier is because it would be entirely hypocritical of me to say so while I type on the internet while sitting in a comfortable house. By comfortable, I don't mean fancy or too big or anything; the house is older but does have a yard where I can grow vegetables. Already I'm luckier than the majority of the world's population, not trying to brag but just saying that in much of the Americas this is true, that we have it way better than the majority of the world in terms of having essentials met: shelter, clean drinking water, food, etc. The changes I've made aren't truly primitivist as they are just reducing the footprint: walking, taking public transit, growing at least the veggies we eat, buying used clothes instead of new ones, hand-making Christmas presents, not buying products made in sweat shops, not eating food made in factory farms, recycling, composting with the city, buying bulk, etc. We also keep our heat very low in the winter and instead just layer clothing. I think our visitors hate us then. There is something to be said for flannel robes and blankets. There's plenty of DIY projects in our home too; instead of buying something we like to make our own things. I would love to make a bigger transition and move to the country, have my own chickens, grow our own food completely, and so on, but reality is such that we'd have to travel too far to jobs or have to quit said jobs without being able to afford such an initial investment. I sometimes envision this scenario, with extended family/friends around. Then there's convincing the other half  Even that wouldn't be like a hunter-gatherer society though.e: I think the biggest change is the worldview and mindset which leads to understanding the truly valuable stuff in life (not material possessions but relationships, to not take more than is needed), etc. Jenny of Oldstones fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jun 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Wow, way to quote a really well written and thought out and long essay without understanding a bit of it, and then giving a knee-jerk and angry reaction. There's absolutely no incitement to anger in any of the postings about primitivism at all. It's telling to see how badly people react to philosophical ideas and to ways that others personally decide to view the world and to live. Nobody's tying you to the whipping post to agree with them or asking you to change. I always thought D&D was pretty civilized. Edit: maybe anger isn't the best way to describe it, but lack of comprehension and accusations/misjudgment? Read the thread. Genocide has already been brought up before; you are not adding anything new here that hasn't already been discussed and walked away from. Further, it's grossly negligent of you to accuse any other poster of wanting genocide to actually happen (unless they do, which would be evil and awful, but that's not the case here). I hesitate to contribute to ongoing debate about hunter-gatherers (maybe an anthropological thread would invite serious debate about it rather than this crap). Anyone truly wanting to discuss more, feel free to PM me. Anyway, a contribution about Canada and climate change/pollution/funding: Canada always seems environmentally good, right? Not really so in the current Harper administration. There's quite a bit of discussion of it in the Canadian thread. We just got the Fossil Award, and a big bill just got passed that slashes a lot of environmental and scientific funding. http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/world/2012/06/14/are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been-scientist?page=0,0 There's also a huge controversy here about introducing supertankers to a coastal area of the Great Bear Rainforest, the world's largest intact temporal rainforest, not to mention piping both heavy oil sands oil through parts of the forest as well as condensate. Expansion of Alberta's mining/injection is also contributing more CO2 emissions (from well to wheel) than lightweight oil drilling, and there is quite a bit of expansion of it at the moment thanks to short-term thought rather than long-term thought. It is amazing to me that this is going on when a good part of the rest of the world is really starting to step up in climate talks. I mean, our prime minister doesn't believe in climate change and is a young earth creationist. 
Jenny of Oldstones fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Jun 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Randomly decided to click on the thread after reading that my home state, Minnesota, is one of the fastest warming states in the country, expecting to see talk about climate change science and politics. Instead I'm treated to utter drivel from a band of delusional luddites on the nobility of savages. Yes, Desmond, the positions you hold engender anger because they include not only a solidly rose-tinted of early human development, but also because you reject out of hand all the good that has come with millennia of progress. My ultimate quibble is that you would rather doom humanity to "enlightened" stagnation than work to solve existing problems. quote:For all the mind-boggling destruction wrought by "civilized" states over the past 2000 years, civilization has allowed great men and women to stand on the shoulders of their ancestors to work miracles. I, you, and the majority of the people on these forums owe their lives to humanity's great works: from more efficient agricultural techniques/implements that provide us abundant foodstuffs, to the medicinal accomplishments that free us from debilitating disease and parasites. Without the opportunities of civilization, I would likely have died at the age of 19 when my appendix burst. quote:Giving up what humanity has accomplished is not the answer. The sane answer is to instead work to correct the problems, insurmountable though they may be. Cleaner fuel sources can be found, unsustainable living can be made more sustainable, and social ills can be remedied. There's no clear-cut answer to any of these nigh-impossible problems but working to fix them is infinitely more mature than throwing your hands up and saying, "Fuckit, I'ma pick some wild apples and throw a spear at reindeer like my greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgranddaddy Fritz." quote:You all seem to possess a longing for closer-knit community and a reconnection with nature that is achievable in the modern world and did not truly exist in the idealized forms you put forth. The "play"-work of your noble savages probably wasn't so fun when game turned scarce, the weather turned hostile, or when a belligerent neighboring tribe with an excess of males came to raid for the resource they were lacking--women. External factors excluded, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle as I see it is intensely conservative and patriarchal. While your anarcho-primitivist friends might succeed in tolerance of all and much joyful drumming, others are more likely to be intensely wary of outsiders and skeptical at best of sharp deviation from the group norm. There you go with noble savages again. It's like a catch phrase that says nothing. You can degrade the culture all you want, but I will remind you that today's world also has many negative things that I really don't think are worse/better than any other time. There are still people who die of drought and cold in modern times. There are many who die of hunger and disease. There are many hostile neighbors, murders, terrible acts in today's world. You are wrong about the patriarchial society though. Hunter gatherers were egalitarian. Patriarchial society is very much something that came about with agriculture. This has been discussed in this very thread, not a page or two back. Hunter-gatherers were so against one person being in charge they sometimes practiced reverse dominance, where if let's say a young man killed an animal for a meal, he would get made fun of and even shunned unless he acted with humility. If he boasted and bragged, that was looked down upon. They very much treated women, elderly, and everyone with equal rights. quote:In any case, it is impossible for humanity to devolve back to such a state without a near extinction-level event. The "collapse of civilization", whether in slow motion or as a sudden shock, would simply be the transformation of the current order into something else. Assuming resource scarcity brought on by climate change and general overextraction, a retreat to something akin to feudalism would be the obvious path for civilizations still nominally possessing the technologies (armaments) and hierarchies of their heydays. quote:So yeah, it's hard not to be completely disdainful of the whole anarcho-primitivism thing. By all means, start a thread about how awesome it is to be a hunter-gatherer. I'm a bit disappointed there isn't more climate in the climate thread, but I guess it's to be expected when the supposedly left-leaning president is unwilling to raise the subject. Edit: added a couple points. Jenny of Oldstones fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Jun 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2012 13:35
|
|