PowerSwitch

A short video with some stark statistics.

Nice video, but I can't help watching it with a profound sense of resignation, because at the end of the day you don't need many statistics to know how stark the situation is. All you really need to know is that 20 years after it became clear that climate change was a real and present danger, carbon emissions are still rising. And so when I hear these discussions about exactly how fast we need to cut emissions it's all utterly academic. We're debating how fast we need to step on the brakes when the reality is that we haven't even managed to convince the world to take its foot off the accelerator yet. And there's no sign we're going to do so any time soon either.

At that point, the message has to change in some sort of profound way, doesn't it? I can't go on pretending we can win this war of ideas. We can't win it. So what do we do instead?



Trouble is...if you follow this line of thinking to its natural conclusion, you end up like Derrick Jensen.

Who?

UndercoverElephant wrote:Nice video, but I can't help watching it with a profound sense of resignation, because at the end of the day you don't need many statistics to know how stark the situation is. All you really need to know is that 20 years after it became clear that climate change was a real and present danger, carbon emissions are still rising. And so when I hear these discussions about exactly how fast we need to cut emissions it's all utterly academic. We're debating how fast we need to step on the breaks when the reality is that we haven't even managed to convince the world to take its foot off the accelerator yet. And there's no sign we're going to do so any time soon either.

At that point, the message has to change in some sort of profound way, doesn't it? I can't go on pretending we can win this war of ideas. We can't win it. So what do we do instead?



Trouble is...if you follow this line of thinking to its natural conclusion, you end up like Derrick Jensen.

A) Give up believing that humans in this civilisation are going to change voluntarily and party like there is no tomorrow or like there is going to be a techno-fix and all the bad stuff will go away.

B) Give up believing that humans in this civilisation are going to change voluntarily and do what you can to save your own arse.

C) Give up believing that humans in this civilisation are going to change voluntarily and begin to consider direct and, if necessary, violent action

Personally, I'm stuck between B and C.

Most people, if they have thought about it seriously at all, usually opt for A.

They may be right.

RenewableCandy wrote:Who?

You're joking, right?

Jensen believes that we have to accept that industrialised civilisation is doomed, and that the longer it clings on to existence, the greater the long-term damage to the Earth's biosphere. Therefore, he reasons, the only rational way forward is to accelerate its demise - to help put it out of its misery. For Jensen this is not merely morally acceptable, but more like our moral duty. His followers are basically a non-religious cult, a bit like alcoholics anonymous. You have to go through a bizarre ritual to be allowed to join - you have to admit what a monster you are, and that you're going to sign up to Derrick's agenda without any hint of a questioning attitude. He's a sort of eco-nihilistic messiah, but without a coherent message, apart from "it's completely f*****d."

He's very much influenced by the North American culture he comes from, but the basic line of reasoning applies here too.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

RenewableCandy wrote:Who?

You're joking, right?

Jensen believes that we have to accept that industrialised civilisation is doomed, and that the longer it clings on to existence, the greater the long-term damage to the Earth's biosphere. Therefore, he reasons, the only rational way forward is to accelerate its demise - to help put it out of its misery. For Jensen this is not merely morally acceptable, but more like our moral duty. His followers are basically a non-religious cult, a bit like alcoholics anonymous. You have to go through a bizarre ritual to be allowed to join - you have to admit what a monster you are, and that you're going to sign up to Derrick's agenda without any hint of a questioning attitude. He's a sort of eco-nihilistic messiah, but without a coherent message, apart from "it's completely f*****d."

He's very much influenced by the North American culture he comes from, but the basic line of reasoning applies here too.

To be honest, I'm a bit of an eco-nihilist myself.

Except I'm not the messiah. I'm just a very naughty boy.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Jensen believes that we have to accept that industrialised civilisation is doomed, and that the longer it clings on to existence, the greater the long-term damage to the Earth's biosphere. Therefore, he reasons, the only rational way forward is to accelerate its demise - to help put it out of its misery.

This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw. I said something similar a few years ago in a blog post:
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2009/12/collapse-and-climate/

...catastrophic collapse would be a catastrophe. However consider what has happened in the past. The loss of Egyptian civilisation, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the Mayan collapse in 900 AD. All reached great heights but collapsed. Looking back now, we don’t even consider these collapses to be tragedies, we don’t remember the deaths, the human suffering, the loss etc. It’s ‘just history’.

If our current civilisation were to undergo complete economic collapse with all the tragedy, suffering and lost that would entail, what would our distant ancestors 2000 years from now remember? Would it just be another chapter in the history text? If the alternative is a climate change triggered sixth mass extinction event, maybe just making sure there is a history text 2000 years from now is worth the loss of today’s civilisation?

I've been of the same opinion for about a decade. Most of my posts on the web from that period are now lost.

Thanks for that, Em. Very sobering.

Could everyone forward the URL to their MPs, please? They might not look at it but their volume of mail on climate matters will increase which will push it up their attention level a bit. They gauge their efforts by what their constituents are badgering them about, so keep badgering.

UndercoverElephant wrote:At that point, the message has to change in some sort of profound way, doesn't it?

Yup. Sandy won't change anything. Maybe a few dozen Sandys might. But I wouldn't place a bet on it. No, we need a biggie.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

RenewableCandy wrote:Who?

You're joking, right?

Sorry. For once I was being perfectly serious. I suppose I should have just looked the name up...I'm not really au fait with Usonian cults.

RenewableCandy wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

RenewableCandy wrote:Who?

You're joking, right?

Sorry. For once I was being perfectly serious. I suppose I should have just looked the name up...I'm not really au fait with Usonian cults.

The deal with Jensen is as follows: either you accept his "20 premises", wholesale and complete, or you might as well not even read his books, let alone join up with him.

http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm

I actually do agree with most of most of them, but not all of all of them. I did not pass the entry exam! I wasn't willing to repent in public for being a privileged caucasian male.

UndercoverElephant wrote: http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm

I actually do agree with most of most of them, but not all of all of them. I did not pass the entry exam! I wasn't willing to repent in public for being a privileged caucasian male.

Premise twelve is very cool:

There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

Well said that man.

emordnilap wrote:

There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

Well said that man.

I don't agree with that. Being rich or poor is not a "delusion" if those bits of paper or data on hard drives can physically manifest themselves in the real world. Of course the situation can change in a blink of an eye - but this afternoon, the guy will a million quid is richer than the guy with a tenner to his name. The rich guy can enlist the labour and skills of others, can maintain physical ownership of space and objects etc. That's no delusion.

clv101 wrote:

emordnilap wrote:

There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

Well said that man.

I don't agree with that. Being rich or poor is not a "delusion" if those bits of paper or data on hard drives can physically manifest themselves in the real world. Of course the situation can change in a blink of an eye - but this afternoon, the guy will a million quid is richer than the guy with a tenner to his name. The rich guy can enlist the labour and skills of others, can maintain physical ownership of space and objects etc. That's no delusion.

With respect Chris, is that particular 'delusion' his real point? Money ≠ intelligence/morality etc.