Is Sushil Yadav right?

[peaceful_life]

Ahh yes, I believe this to be a false premise though.

If we can hypothesise a situation where the majority of children are being educated, and living to, a permaculture ethos that instills the natural checks and balances that ensures their existance.

After say......3 or 4 generations of this, i wonder how the study looks then.

Also....is it fair to say that it has been a minority of hawk influencing and studying?

The point about the model is that it turns out that the only kind of population that is evolutionarily stable is one with the ratio I mentioned. All others collapse to this population ratio and then tend to oscillate around it. And that's if they are lucky. If they are unlucky, the initial population oscillation is so wild that it never recovers and goes extinct. If arguing for a population with the characteristics you describe, then what you are basically saying is that you want an island full of doves and that if it were only full of doves then all would be well. I agree. The problem is that you only need one hawk to arise, and it's all f*cked. And one hawk will always arise, at some point. The only way to avoid it happening is to maintain a constant vigilance in perpetuity and that's simply not possible.

We truly don't know.
But yes...I can see a majority of doves at least being so abhorrently offended by a monority of hawk behaviour (that would ultimatly lead to the destruction of the entire environment) that it would keep it in check.

Drink driving used to be not only accepted, but encouraged (a very crude analogy I know)

[sushil_yadav]

The environmental catastrophe we are witnessing today is a consequence of the attempt by the west to westernize the entire world.

Today the entire world is collectively involved in destruction of environment but the biggest role in this process of destruction was played by Western Civilization.

Western Civilization suffered from total lack of foresight.

The West was the first to start Industrial Revolution.......the first to travel on the destructive path of Industrialization and consumerism.......It then forced western lifestyle on its colonies in Asia, Africa and America whose cultures it had already destroyed during the era of colonization.

The west did not have the foresight to know that a lifestyle based on loot, plunder and exploitation of natural resources would destroy the very things that created and sustained all life on earth for millions of years and ultimately lead to total destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems.

Taliban and Al Qaeda will start looking like saints if we compare their crimes with the crimes of Western Civilization during colonization.

Today the west is running from pillar to post trying to prevent some islamic and non-islamic countries from acquiring nuclear weapons........As if this is possible..... sooner or later.....by hook or crook all countries that are trying to get nuclear weapons will ultimately get them.

Once again the west did not have the foresight to know that dangerous technology should not be created, dangerous technology should not be brought into existence.........harmful material should not be brought into existence.

If the west makes 10,000 nuclear weapons it is progress, growth, development......If eastern countries try to make a few nuclear weapons it is wrong.......If an Islamic country tries to make even one it is terrorism.

[By the way...... who needs nuclear weapons to destroy the planet when man has already produced thousands of tonnes of nuclear material and waste that is going to contaminate the planet with radiation for thousands of years]

Industrialization was the biggest crime on earth.......The biggest act of destruction on earth.

Development is Destruction........Development is Destruction.

"Growth Rate" - "Economy Rate" - "GDP"
These are figures of "Ecocide".
These are figures of "Crimes against Nature".
These are figures of "Destruction of Ecosystems".
These are figures of "Insanity, Abnormality and Criminality".


.
.

There was some discussion about Art and Culture in this thread........Art and Cultural Activities existed in every pre-industrial / non-industrial society we have had on earth.......In fact real Art and Culture existed only in pre-industrial / non-industrial societies.......In Industrial Society all activities become destructive, even Art and Culture........Industrial Society has built millions of buildings for Art and Culture which led to killing of millions of Trees and killing of millions of acres of fertile soil by cement, concrete and asphalt........Industrial Society has manufactured millions of tonnes of equipment for use in Art and Culture whose production by Industrial methods has led to destruction of environment, destruction of animals, trees, air, water and land directly or indirectly.........In Industrial Society millions of Artists travel for millions of kilometers all over the world by Rail, Road, Ships and Aeroplanes for Cultural Shows which again leads to destruction of environment....directly or indirectly.


Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[sushil_yadav]

What is most shocking about modern environmentalism is piecemeal solutions.

There are millions of land-based species.......Some groups are trying to save the Tiger........Some groups are trying to save the Elephant.......Some groups are trying to save the Rhinoceros.......Some groups are trying to save the Eagle and Vulture.

The solution cannot be different for different land species......If you don't destroy forests you save millions of species.......If you destroy forests you lose millions of species.......Millions of wild species thrived in forests in pre-industrial societies........Industrial Society has destroyed most of the forests which has led to decimation of most of the species........If Industrial Activity continues we lose all land species, If Industrial Activity stops we save all land species.......Hunter_Gatherer Society and Agrarian Society did not make efforts to save individual land species......They did not destroy forests with Industrial Activity which automatically saved most of the land species.

There are millions of marine species.......The same absurdity can be seen here too.........Some groups are trying to save the Whale........Some groups are trying to save the Dolphin.......Some groups are trying to save the Turtle.......Some groups are trying to save the species in Coral Reefs.

Once again the solution cannot be different for different marine species......If you don't destroy oceans you save millions of species.......If you destroy oceans you lose millions of species.......Movement of thousands of Industrial Ships in Millions of kilometers of Shipping Lanes and discharge of Trillions of tonnnes of Industrial Waste into oceans have decimated marine species and turned oceans into dead zones........If Industrial Activity continues we lose all marine species, If Industrial Activity stops we save all marine species.......Hunter_Gatherer Society and Agrarian Society did not make efforts to save individual marine species......They did not destroy oceans with Industrial Activity which automatically saved most of the marine species.

.
.

All Environmentalism is Pseudo-Environmentalism in Industrial Society.

It is impossible to save environment in Industrial Society because Industrialization itself is the cause of environmental destruction.........In a non-industrial society environmentalism was not even needed.......In the absence of Industrial Activity environment got saved automatically because only limited destruction of environment was possible.

It is impossible to stop decimation of millions of marine species in Industrial Society........Movement of thousands of Industrial Ships in Millions of kilometers of Shipping Lanes and discharge of Trillions of tonnnes of Industrial Waste into oceans have decimated marine species and turned oceans into dead zones.

It is impossible to stop decimation of millions of land species in Industrial Society.......Logging Industry, Mining Industry, Construction Industry, Transportation Industry, Millions of kilometers of Rail and Road Networks have destroyed Forests and decimated millions of wild species that lived in forests.

Vegans and Vegetarians are trying to save animals.......It is impossible to save animals in an Industrial Society.......Individual choices cannot save animals.......It is how much the society destroys collectively that matters.......Industrial Society is killing billions of animals for food in Industrial Slaughter Houses every day........Industrial Fishing has decimated fish in the oceans.......Industrial Activity has destroyed forests which has led to decimation of all wild animals that lived in forests........In a non-industrial society animals get saved automatically because only limited killing of animals was possible in the absence of Industrial Machines.

Some people are trying to make the environment clean.......It is impossible to clean the environment in an Industrial Society.........It is impossible for air, water and land to be clean in any Industrial Society........It is impossible for Rivers, Oceans, Atmosphere and Soil to be clean in any Industrial Society.......Industrial Activity produces three kinds of waste - solid, liquid and gaseous.......And it doesn't produce a few kilograms of waste....... It produces Trillions of tonnes of waste........There are only three places on earth where all this waste can go - Air, Water, Land........There is no fourth place on earth where Industrial waste can go........Industrial Activity has produced Trillions of tonnes of Metal waste, Liquid waste, Gaseous waste, Chemical waste, Plastic waste, eWaste, Nuclear waste.......
It has killed, polluted and poisoned rivers, lakes, oceans, underground water, the soil/ land, the air/ sky......It is impossible for air, water and land to be clean in any Industrial Society........It is impossible for Rivers, Oceans, Atmosphere and Soil to be clean in any Industrial Society.

[hodson2k9]

That's merely playing with words.

Ye, sure it is .

There is a big difference between Steve's comment and say Ziggy's from the other day.

As peaceful_life said ..... tact.

[emordnilap]

Is Sushil Yadav right?

Yes.

[Little John]

Is Sushil Yadav right?

Yes.

Doesn't stop him being an impossibly irritating little bugger though...

Seriously, though, I agree with the essential argument

[UndercoverElephant]

The environmental catastrophe we are witnessing today is a consequence of the attempt by the west to westernize the entire world.

Today the entire world is collectively involved in destruction of environment but the biggest role in this process of destruction was played by Western Civilization.

Western Civilization suffered from total lack of foresight.

The West was the first to start Industrial Revolution.......the first to travel on the destructive path of Industrialization and consumerism.......It then forced western lifestyle on its colonies in Asia, Africa and America whose cultures it had already destroyed during the era of colonization.

I think you mean Britain, not "the west". But I'm not sure you can blame us for lack of foresight. It was not until the middle of the 20th century that it started to become clear how bad the coming ecological catastrophe was going to be, and by then Britain was no longer in the driving seat of global culture. You can blame the Americans for "consumerism", which is a much more recent invention.

The west did not have the foresight to know that a lifestyle based on loot, plunder and exploitation of natural resources would destroy the very things that created and sustained all life on earth for millions of years and ultimately lead to total destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems.

How could our ancestors have known that? If you'd told people in 1900 that 70 years later a man would walk on the moon, they'd probably have thought you were completely mad.

The "lack of foresight" wasn't just to do with the environmental consequences of the invention of industrialised civilisation. At the start of the industrial revolution, nobody understood the scope of what was happening. One of the first important developments, for example, was the building of the first commercial canals, which revolutionised the transport of materials like coal and wheat. Vast amounts of money was invested in building more canals all over the country, yet the heyday of the canal network was very short-lived, because at the same time as the network was being built, somebody was busy inventing the mobile steam engine. Now...it should have been totally obvious to all concerned that horse-drawn canal boats were never going to be able to compete with steam-powered railways but most people simply weren't able to imagine it happening. Railways already existed - trucks pulled by horses in areas not suitable for building canals. Stationary steam engines also existed, mainly for pumping water out of mines or up to the summit level of the canals. But almost nobody managed to put 2 and 2 together and realise that somebody was going to put a steam engine on wheels and render the canals yesterday's technology. This inability to imagine the future led to many people losing vast fortunes because they continued to back the canals against the railways, even after most of the canals had been bought up by railway companies and deliberately left to rot.

Anyway...what I'm trying to explain is that at the start of the industrial revolution, nobody had any real idea where civilisation was heading. It was way beyond anything they were capable of imagining, so you can't really blame them for lack of foresight. Most people couldn't even imagine the next step, let alone where we were going to finally end up.

[emordnilap]

Is Sushil Yadav right?

Yes.

Doesn't stop him being an impossibly irritating little bugger though...

Seriously, though, I agree with the essential argument

I had already come to that conclusion about you, Steve.

[Little John]

Yes.

Doesn't stop him being an impossibly irritating little bugger though...

Seriously, though, I agree with the essential argument

I had already come to that conclusion about you, Steve.

hahahahaha

I tend to have that effect on people

[emordnilap]

I'm with s_y too, though it's only relatively recently I've come to distill such thoughts and start to come to terms with them. It's difficult for one brought up amid plenty to analyse, understand and then accept that this is it, the 'best' it can get - and that this so-called 'best' is responsible for an industrial mayhem which, in reality, should never have been allowed.

I'm getting there but I'm only me.

[snow hope]

I'm with s_y too, though it's only relatively recently I've come to distill such thoughts and start to come to terms with them. It's difficult for one brought up amid plenty to analyse, understand and then accept that this is it, the 'best' it can get - and that this so-called 'best' is responsible for an industrial mayhem which, in reality, should never have been allowed.

I'm getting there but I'm only me.

As I said earlier in the thread I have got there too.

It is an amazing situation, that what we have all considered as progress is really ecocide. I mean until S_Y pointed it out, I would have denied it until the cows came home ( ) but the logic is there for us all to see. I would suggest that it is so antithetical to our current paradigm that most people will not be able to bring their heads round to be able to accept it.

And after writing that paragraph, I think I need to go and lie down.....

But just to add.. we have striven for the best part of 2 centuries to evolve a civilisation that not only threatens to undermine our current way of life but also appears to threaten the future of all living things on this planet..... the ultimate Catch 22?

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm with s_y too, though it's only relatively recently I've come to distill such thoughts and start to come to terms with them. It's difficult for one brought up amid plenty to analyse, understand and then accept that this is it, the 'best' it can get - and that this so-called 'best' is responsible for an industrial mayhem which, in reality, should never have been allowed.

I'm getting there but I'm only me.

As I said earlier in the thread I have got there too.

It is an amazing situation, that what we have all considered as progress is really ecocide. I mean until S_Y pointed it out, I would have denied it until the cows came home ( ) but the logic is there for us all to see. I would suggest that it is so antithetical to our current paradigm that most people will not be able to bring their heads round to be able to accept it.

And after writing that paragraph, I think I need to go and lie down.....

But just to add.. we have striven for the best part of 2 centuries to evolve a civilisation that not only threatens to undermine our current way of life but also appears to threaten the future of all living things on this planet..... the ultimate Catch 22?

The Catch 22 concerns growth. If we don't keep creating economic growth then our economies and societies will stumble and fail, but if we do keep on creating economic growth them we'll fatally destabilise the ecosystem and our economies and societies will stumble and fail.

I think the problem is misrepresented if we say it is all about industrialisation and consumerism. "Consumerism" is insane, unneccesary and driven by a corrupt oligarchy masquerading as democracy. Industrialisation and modern science were the natural result of the process that started with our 2 million years of experimenting with designing and using stone tools. It was written into our destiny by our DNA. The only way we could have avoided it was to learn our lessons before suffering the consequences of our mistakes, and humans aren't very good at this. We tend only to learn after repeatedly experiencing the negative consequences, and even then we have short memories.

We WERE warned, very clearly, by Thomas Malthus, right at the start of the industrial revolution he didn't see coming. Unfortunately, the only people who took Malthus seriously were the biologists. We needed the economists to listen to him, but they are profoundly deaf to such things.

[Little John]

I'm with s_y too, though it's only relatively recently I've come to distill such thoughts and start to come to terms with them. It's difficult for one brought up amid plenty to analyse, understand and then accept that this is it, the 'best' it can get - and that this so-called 'best' is responsible for an industrial mayhem which, in reality, should never have been allowed.

I'm getting there but I'm only me.

As I said earlier in the thread I have got there too.

It is an amazing situation, that what we have all considered as progress is really ecocide. I mean until S_Y pointed it out, I would have denied it until the cows came home ( ) but the logic is there for us all to see. I would suggest that it is so antithetical to our current paradigm that most people will not be able to bring their heads round to be able to accept it.

And after writing that paragraph, I think I need to go and lie down.....

But just to add.. we have striven for the best part of 2 centuries to evolve a civilisation that not only threatens to undermine our current way of life but also appears to threaten the future of all living things on this planet..... the ultimate Catch 22?

The Catch 22 concerns growth. If we don't keep creating economic growth then our economies and societies will stumble and fail, but if we do keep on creating economic growth them we'll fatally destabilise the ecosystem and our economies and societies will stumble and fail.

I think the problem is misrepresented if we say it is all about industrialisation and consumerism. "Consumerism" is insane, unneccesary and driven by a corrupt oligarchy masquerading as democracy. Industrialisation and modern science were the natural result of the process that started with our 2 million years of experimenting with designing and using stone tools. It was written into our destiny by our DNA. The only way we could have avoided it was to learn our lessons before suffering the consequences of our mistakes, and humans aren't very good at this. We tend only to learn after repeatedly experiencing the negative consequences, and even then we have short memories.

We WERE warned, very clearly, by Thomas Malthus, right at the start of the industrial revolution he didn't see coming. Unfortunately, the only people who took Malthus seriously were the biologists. We needed the economists to listen to him, but they are profoundly deaf to such things.

I agree

[emordnilap]

it is so antithetical to our current paradigm that most people will not be able to bring their heads round to be able to accept it.

Pre-damned-cisely.

I know one fella who believes we'll go off and colonise another planet. He is rational and intelligent. The few houses that are being built (often next door to abandoned shells) are simply huge and many still nastily built. Ryanair is hugely profitable. Supermarkets are gold mines. Motorsports are flourishing. 'Waste' collection bins are overflowing. The cost of motor fuel is declining. The cost of cars is declining. The number of new vehicles is astounding. Big weddings are in fashion.

In other words, what recession? What ecocide? What crisis?

[ujoni08]

Well put, UE. If that summary could be spread to all the world....
Nah, they wouldn't believe it