Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[Little John]

Many pre-industrial, agrarian societies would very likely not have existed for ever. There are numerous anthropological examples of pre-industrial societies, going right back to the very earliest, collapsing due to self-inflicted ecological degradation.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/p ... lapses.PDF

It's not just that industrial civilisation is unsustainable. Arguably most, if not all, civilisations are unsustainable. Industrial society just happens to be particularly efficient at collapsing quickly. And this time it's global.

In other words, industrial societal collapse is just the final act in a drama that has been inexorably playing out since we first walked out of the African Savannah,

[sushil_yadav]

The issue is global environmental collapse, not collapse of localized human society...........Pre-industrial societies might have got destroyed at a few places due to disease or any other reason but it hardly affected the planet.......No pre-industrial society destroyed the entire planet like industrial society has done......No pre-industrial society destroyed forests, rivers, oceans and atmosphere.........No pre-industrial society decimated millions of land and water based species......Only industrial society has done this.......Only industrial society could do this.

[Little John]

The issue is global environmental collapse, not collapse of localized human society...........Pre-industrial societies might have got destroyed at a few places due to disease or any other reason but it hardly affected the planet.......No pre-industrial society destroyed the entire planet like industrial society has done......No pre-industrial society destroyed forests, rivers, oceans and atmosphere.........No pre-industrial society decimated millions of land and water based species......Only industrial society has done this.......Only industrial society could do this.

I agree about the scale of destruction wreaked by industrial society Sushil. My point is that this is not because of a difference of type, but merely a difference of degree.

That point is important because, if one accepts it, then one must also accept that this dreadful impasse we have now reached is, ultimately, an inevitable function of what we are. We humans are a form of ecological cancer. We fulfil all of the criteria. We reproduce completely beyond any carrying capacity of our host to support us and, in the end, destroy both ourselves and our host in the process.

[the_lyniezian]

But s/he's right.

Right about what? Perhaps the scale of which environmental destruction is being wrought by industrial society in its current mode, and he might just have a few points about endless debates to the extent they are in lieu of any real action, but otherwise short on solutions that actually recognize the complexity of coping with the problem.

Much like the Jensen article you posted- it is fine to say that the answer is simple in that we should simply stop engaging in destructive practices, but that doesn't deal with what we substitute them with or how we adjust our way of life to cope without doing these things. I imagine some of this would be fairly easy, mind you, or the losses might be outweighed by the gains. Seriously reduce car ownership and useage, and you deal with quite a few of the problems in the list in an above post: the impact of emissions on climate change and general pollution, and road deaths. Many car journeys can already be easily avoided by those able to walk, cycle or take the bus; more if there were better transport options. In countries like the US mind you, where infrastructure is designed around cars, things might be somewhat trickier to solve. The loss of the car industry could be weathered if other industries were able to pick up the slack- if more bikes or buses were produced, for example.

But, I am talking about industrial society here. Tweaking industrial society to less destructive ends may only go so far; if so, how do we successfully transition to a post-industrial one? And how do we alter our ridiculous economic structure which presumes endless growth, profiteering at all costs, and a reliance on overconsumption?

Many of these things are indeed being answered in parts on this very board. Possibly Jensen himself addreses them elsewhere. But by the OP?

[the_lyniezian]

The issue is global environmental collapse, not collapse of localized human society...........Pre-industrial societies might have got destroyed at a few places due to disease or any other reason but it hardly affected the planet.......No pre-industrial society destroyed the entire planet like industrial society has done......No pre-industrial society destroyed forests, rivers, oceans and atmosphere.........No pre-industrial society decimated millions of land and water based species......Only industrial society has done this.......Only industrial society could do this.

I agree about the scale of destruction wreaked by industrial society Sushil. My point is that this is not because of a difference of type, but merely a difference of degree.

That point is important because, if one accepts it, then one must also accept that this dreadful impasse we have now reached is, ultimately, an inevitable function of what we are. We humans are a form of ecological cancer. We fulfil all of the criteria. We reproduce completely beyond any carrying capacity of our host to support us and, in the end, destroy both ourselves and our host in the process.

Based on our behaviour one could draw parallels, but I doubt it's inevitable due to our nature, or at least, it would not if we were as we were created to be. (No, I am not necessarily advocating YEC here, though I stand by my belief in what might be called original sin and its effects.) We certainly have the capacity to make rational choices which would limit our destructive behaviour if we collectively wanted to. (Which you will note, simple cancer cells can not.) At least our forebears had the excuse that they didn't always understand what they were doing. With us I expect it is mostly sheer bloody-mindedness and an unwillingness to change our ways. Perhaps coupled with the fact we can't entirely agree on the form of the solution- which makes me think we should dispense with the parts we are at loggerheads on and proceed with what we can all agree on.

[emordnilap]

But s/he's right.

Right about what?

So's Steve.

[the_lyniezian]

But s/he's right.

Right about what?

So's Steve.

What, that we are somehow akin to a cancer? Maybe you can draw parallels but unlike simple cells, we are a much more complex arrangement of cells that is able to think about what we are doing. He has a point but is phrasing it in a way which is terribly dehumanizing and fatalistic.

[peaceful_life]

The issue is global environmental collapse, not collapse of localized human society...........Pre-industrial societies might have got destroyed at a few places due to disease or any other reason but it hardly affected the planet.......No pre-industrial society destroyed the entire planet like industrial society has done......No pre-industrial society destroyed forests, rivers, oceans and atmosphere.........No pre-industrial society decimated millions of land and water based species......Only industrial society has done this.......Only industrial society could do this.

I agree about the scale of destruction wreaked by industrial society Sushil. My point is that this is not because of a difference of type, but merely a difference of degree.

That point is important because, if one accepts it, then one must also accept that this dreadful impasse we have now reached is, ultimately, an inevitable function of what we are. We humans are a form of ecological cancer. We fulfil all of the criteria. We reproduce completely beyond any carrying capacity of our host to support us and, in the end, destroy both ourselves and our host in the process.

On the face of it, I agree, however...I disagree that we, as a species, have a default setting, or even impulse, of destruction and there are many recorded cases of peoples using various methods in regulating against population overshoot and therefore unwarranted expansion/consumption, indeed...some of these folk are still trying to exist, even today.

Personally I believe that the act of ploughing was and is, our original sin, and as is more than probably far too late in the game for the accelerated industrial narrative, we are at least recognising and developing far more passive and benign systems of a slower entropic rate, they also happen to be regenerative and restorative, definitely worth a try, no matter how late in the game.
[/i]

[Mr. Fox]

the act of ploughing was and is, our original sin

Ah, yes... 'humans'... The species that got the contract to move all the topsoil into the sea.

'Catastrophe Agriculture'.

[peaceful_life]

the act of ploughing was and is, our original sin

Ah, yes... 'humans'... The species that got the contract to move all the topsoil into the sea.

'Catastrophe Agriculture'.

I think there's a single mining operation in Australia which moves more soil/material in one day than the patterns of the biosphere move in a whole year and yet...various sites of productive 'food forests' all over the globe have been and being discovered, some already thousands of years old.

A mindset of opposites, yet both technically advanced.

[Little John]

.....We certainly have the capacity to make rational choices which would limit our destructive behaviour if we collectively wanted to..............With us I expect it is mostly sheer bloody-mindedness and an unwillingness to change our ways........

It's not bloody mindedness L. It's far simpler and sadder than that. The entire human species is trapped in a "prisoner's dilemma".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Or, to use another metaphor, our behaviour is akin to that of a lemming approaching the edge of a cliff alongside all of his fellow lemmings who are doing the same. He can see the edge coming and so he knows full well he should stop walking. However, in the absence of a certain knowledge that his fellows will also stop when he does, he knows he will likely be trampled underfoot and die even sooner. Consequently, he does the only immediately rational thing available to him under the circumstances and keeps on walking.

It's why I drive 35 miles to work because that's how I pay my rent and feed my family. If I didn't, someone else would. It's why each and every one of us takes an uncountable number of tiny rational steps, each and every day, in our inexorable walk towards the abyss.

[sushil_yadav]

All the extra work which has destroyed extra environment has been done by the urban population.

50% of world population is urban.

The entire urban population is criminal........The only reason it is not in jail is because the system itself is being run by urban population.

All the extra and destructive work in this world happens when society does not produce food........In agrarian society more than 99% of population was producing food........In industrial society 50% of world population is producing food for entire population and the remaining 50% is doing extra and destructive work.


Millions of other species destroyed environment only for food.

Industrial man has destroyed environment for thousands of consumer goods and services in addition to food, clothing and shelter.

Production of thousands of consumer goods and services must stop immediately.

The collective work of human society must be limited to food, clothing and shelter.

Millions of other species only get food from earth.

Give free food to the urban population but stop the extra and destructive urban work (A fraction of world population is already producing food for entire population).
.

[Little John]

......The entire urban population is criminal........The only reason it is not in jail is because the system itself is being run by urban population.....
.

Okay........now you can just F--k off.

[emordnilap]

......The entire urban population is criminal........The only reason it is not in jail is because the system itself is being run by urban population.....
.

Okay........now you can just **** off.

Well...s/he has a point, of sorts.

The urban population is not to blame - but that urban population needs to reject their overlords and the habits that bind them. They're 'guilty' in a similar manner to how soldiers become guilty of murder.

[snow hope]

Or, to use another metaphor, our behaviour is akin to that of a lemming approaching the edge of a cliff alongside all of his fellow lemmings who are doing the same. He can see the edge coming and so he knows full well he should stop walking. However, in the absence of a certain knowledge that his fellows will also stop when he does, he knows he will likely be trampled underfoot and die even sooner. Consequently, he does the only immediately rational thing available to him under the circumstances and keeps on walking.

It's why I drive 35 miles to work because that's how I pay my rent and feed my family. If I didn't, someone else would. It's why each and every one of us takes an uncountable number of tiny rational steps, each and every day, in our inexorable walk towards the abyss.

This is so true and very sad.

So how do we break out of this dilemma? There must be a way?

We can do it individually but it involves withdrawing from the current way of life and that is hard for most of us to do. So how do we do it in large numbers - millions?

Maybe this is the key question that we need to solve?