Why are environmentalists wishing for the end of the world?

[AhabsOtherLeg]

but it's definitely a swampy area, with all type of skeevy agendas and people and groups presenting themselves one way while behaving the opposite. it's depressing and frustrating, especially for people who are truly concerned about making the planet a healthy place for all of us. i have found that it seems that a lot of local groups are doing good work and have sincere memberships.

(it's 108 here, so i'm going to go soak in a cool tub and may be there awhile....)

I agree 100%. I was happy to see one of America's top billionare oil tycoons now committed to wind power.

America's top oil billionaires have been running the planet on hot air for quite some time now.

[barracuda]

To change our habits means changing our myths, and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon!

Myths tend to be narratives composed of contents from the collective unconscious, and dramatic changes in the prevailing story can occur rapidly if the psychic conditions are right. The formation of the Nazi mythos happened almost overnight--literally--an entire population was rapidly swept up into a resurgent Teutonic story of martial conquest, with horrific global consequences. So I don't think we have as much control over our myths as we'd like to believe. They have a certain organicity about them that escapes the grasp of reason and logic. What we may be witnessing today, with the severe stresses of environmental and social breakdowns on the psychic health of world populations, are the early indications of a great retreat into mythic narratives that were perfectly adapted to earlier times, but will no doubt fail us in the same way that Nazism was doomed to failure. Or not. Other, more compelling and appropriate myths may emerge that have more to do with our current situation and enable us to organize our efforts in a positive, sustainable way. Clearly, the dominant and often competing myths of science and religion are collapsing under the weight of all the accumulated prejudices and biases that have made them too slow to change as events race ahead. A new story is needed, and if we won't ritualistically participate in its formation, it will emerge from our panic and frustration in ways that will probably be mostly negative and reactionary.

I see myths and similar story telling as a way to internalize events which may be larger than the scope of the human mind to easily come to terms with. It seems to me the Nazi mythology didn't really spring to life overnight, but was formed over a hundred-year period (the pan-germanic absorption of teutonic myths, and aryanism) and then crystallized as a result of one of the greatest catastrophes ever to befall mankind: the first world war.

I would tend to agree that a mechanism for the unification of large groups of diverse people will have to be narrative in nature, and that its creation can be tended towards a benign goal, or it may chaotically appear on its own destructive accord. But like mosts permeating stories, it must find roots in some catalysing signature which I fear will have to leave a scar. To this end, once again, I don't see the end of the world coming for humans, or view these eco-apocalyptic tales as doing anything but reinforcing the flawed myths of human intervention in global events which are eons in the making and quite possibly beyond our ken. Such notions are hubris. Mankind can set about doing the only thing whcich has kept any creature from extinction on this planet - adapting to new events with rapidity ahead of disaterous consequences. And this is something we are good at. Our stories, and our anthems need to be able reinforce possibilities which can be embraced without substituting an afterlife, or a technological solution to problems which have been caused, essentially, by religion and machines.

[Corvidaerex]

"I completely hate Slate, what a teeming cess-pool of half-witted self-satisfaction." --JustDrew

Now that's an accurate description of Slate.

[Mx32]

"It's like how "animal rights" activists are using the same tactics and violence against Parkinsin/Alzheimer researchers as the militant pro life people are using against clinic doctors."

As my family contains "Animal rights activists", including my mum and dad, I can assure you the the movement is made up of mostly non-violent people.

(Violence against property and inanimate objects - that's something each must come to a conclusion about on their own)

Certainly, individual Scientists and Doctors have commited far more serious crimes than the entire "animal rights " movement, including premeditated murder.

A vivisector is far more likely to be attacked by his/her lover than a lone AR activist armed with a hammer.

Brave vivisectors struggling to find "cures" for Alzheimers and Parkinsons, under seige and under attack from heavily armed fanatics?

The truth is far,far,far less exciting

BTW, when vivisection first became popular in Europe,there was no concept of the procedures needing to take place in secret; the howls of the dogs in pain at the hands of some of the more demented scientists led to angry "mobs" threatening the vivisectors with physical violence.

But not for concern of the welfare of the dogs - the howls kept people awake at night.

There was only so much professional vivisectors and enthusiastic gentlemen could do to animals in their homes and in lectures before the public started getting cheesed off, thus vivisection went "underground" (quite literally, in some cases).

Claude Bernard: a particular target of violent abuse, even from members of his own family. He appears to have shared their distaste, writing that "the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen.


François Magendie: animals were strapped down on boards to be dissected, with Magendie allegedly shouting to the dogs as they struggled: "Tais-toi, pauvre bête!" (Shut up, you poor beast!)




"A large dog, stretched on its back on an operation board, is carried into the lecture-room by the demonstrator and the laboratory attendant. Its legs are fixed to the board, its head is firmly held in the usual manner, and it is tightly muzzled. There is a large incision on the side of the neck, exposing the gland. The animal exhibits all the signs of intense suffering; in his struggles, he again and again lifts his body from the board, and makes powerful attempts to get free. The lecturer, attired in the blood-stained surplice of the priest of vivisection, has tucked up his sleeves and is now comfortably smoking a pipe, whilst with hands coloured crimson he arranges the electrical circuit for the stimulation that will follow. Now and then, he makes a funny remark, which is appreciated by those around him."

- The Shambles of Science: Extracts from the Diary of Two Students of Physiology

(in the interests of balance, I'd like to point out that - obviously - without the wonderful and totally necessary experiment described above we'd all be dying of mysterious diseases...oh! wait!...)

[yathrib]

To respond to the original post:

From the summary given there, Kunstler sounds like a real pig, but then the author of the article seems more than a little biased. There definitely is a segment of environmentalists out there who seem to relish the thought of a mass human die off, and seem to have perfect faith that they'll be among the elect. Sounds like another well-known group, yes? No, not Nazis, I mean rapture believers and libertarian Heinlein fan boys.

Conservatives often bash liberals with this sort of "environmentalist," but really there's nothing liberal or leftist about their beliefs or predictions. The implication is that resources are scarce, and that only the deserving should get to use them. In this case, deserving means people who can climb mountains, ride horses, do calculus, etc. The slow, the physically impaired, and other useless eaters need not apply. People like Edward Abbey were totally up front about this, but no one wanted to take them seriously.

[8bitagent]

Sorry, Im more concerned about Darfurians being slaughtered by Chinese/Sudan proxy troops for oil...or political and religious prisoners having their organs ripped out by the Chinese government...

or the mass slaughter of Afghani, Iraqi and Pakistani villagers by the CIA and US government than I am about "animal rights".

Why arent animal rights groups protesting every meatpacketing plant, hunting show, fish and game department, and Mcdonalds headquarters?

Now I love animals. I would never even hurt a ladybug. Im a no exceptions vegetarian. And yes, Ive seen some of those unthinkably horrific Peta documentaries on HBO and online of the fur trade and other stuff.

Im just saying people need a better scope...tho trust me, I am grateful to
see people with a zealous spirit. Im sure we can all agree its good to see people out there trying to stop clubbing seals and whale hunting. But why is it only the "cute" animals deserve defending?

[8bitagent]

To respond to the original post:

From the summary given there, Kunstler sounds like a real pig, but then the author of the article seems more than a little biased. There definitely is a segment of environmentalists out there who seem to relish the thought of a mass human die off, and seem to have perfect faith that they'll be among the elect. Sounds like another well-known group, yes? No, not Nazis, I mean rapture believers and libertarian Heinlein fan boys.

Conservatives often bash liberals with this sort of "environmentalist," but really there's nothing liberal or leftist about their beliefs or predictions. The implication is that resources are scarce, and that only the deserving should get to use them. In this case, deserving means people who can climb mountains, ride horses, do calculus, etc. The slow, the physically impaired, and other useless eaters need not apply. People like Edward Abbey were totally up front about this, but no one wanted to take them seriously.

the right is all about being macho.

Big trucks with "W" stickers, big humvees.
Blowing up villagers with bombs. You get the idea.

So...being pro environment sounds "sissy" to them. Thats why they arent down for it.

[geogeo]

I think our major problem as humans has been increasingly avoided as we seek to fix the earth, or whatever. Mystics and sages of all religions, cultures and times have long realized--and have never stopped telling us--that what we need to fix is our relationships with each other. "Love one another." We are so many and we have lost compassion--we would rather love the earth and hate ourselves, but hatred of ourselves, each other, the rich, the poor, the Americans, W--none of this solves anything and is dragging us to our doom.

I think for 99% of our existence as sentient primates we shared certain very strong bonds and certainly did not seek to destroy ourselves; most likely given evidence from Amazonia, until as recently as 10K years ago we were telepathic. In the chaos of our cherished diversity today we are trained to believe that we are individuals, each a rock; that God is someone else than the combination of all of us, our 'higher selves', whatever.

I seriously doubt we solve anything if we are incapable of unconditional love of our own species. Environmentalists are often correct, often wrong and alarmist, but by saving the planet we do not save ourselves. By a massive die-off we achieve nothing--we would simply breed again in massive numbers. No materialist solution, no engineering solution, will work. The sad thing is that the one-world engineering we are experiencing is for the convenience of the 'hegemony of parasitism'--so that whatever it is that is parasitic on our existence can continue to thrive as well.

etc.

[Joe Hillshoist]

...until as recently as 10K years ago we were telepathic.

I think they still are. But its rare that cultures actually train people to use those abilities. Especially western culture.

Inquisitions and rationalism have sort of removed the concept from the western mind.

Kind of ironic that a rainbow gathering is as likely as anything else in western culture to have an effective form of telepathic training, and that its so often a target for the repressive side of siociety - its like where the dogmatic rationalists fail, the inquisition is always there to pick up the slack.

Anyway, as far as love one another thing goes, great call. It seems pretty obvious when you actually sit down for a while and think about it.

I know people from a few different indigenous cultures, one is definitely that old (10K yrs), Australian indigenous culture, which is really many cultures... Anyway those cultures are very compassionate, tho they can be hard at times, but that always seems to be a last resort.

But they also extend the idea of "one another" to include the whole physical world, animals, plants, land, water and air. If humans are ever gonna survive as a technological species on (and off) Earth, they will probably have to embrace that attitude (again).

Funnily enough Rainbow Gatherings are also one of the places/events where that attitude can be found, and where it spreads effectively.

No wonder the cops give them grief.

[MacCruiskeen]

Joe and geogeo: Do you guys know this extraordinary essay on "The Collapse of Preconquest Consciousness", by the anthropologist E. Richard Sorenson?

I'm out, back from the Andaman where I've just been through an experience I'll not soon forget. Only by pure chance did I happen to be there when their extraordinary intuitive mentality gave up the ghost right in front of me, in an inconceivable overwhelming week. I'm almost wrecked myself...

http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2007/06/pre ... sness.html

Painful reading, but it ties in with your thoughts on telepathy and the Western ego.

[geogeo]

Thanks! I'll read this tonight. I just don't think you can love 'Gaia' while being alienated from humanity--this is the difference between indigenous culture and 'modern.' Also, I think we've often confused loving one another with being peaceful all the time and not doing anyone any harm. Indigenous culture can be very cruel, but at times you've got to drive out the 'witches', the psychopaths as it were, perhaps...

Nevertheless, there are at least 50 living societies in the world that reject violence altogether--the Amish, for example, have survived and thrived under the protective shield of the US (an extraordinary counter-example to those who say that the US is a priori terrible in everything!), and they are inheritors of the Pietist tradition that stems in large part from Jakob Boehme the mystic. Or the Mandaeans, for example, the followers of John the Baptist and the rest, who only recently have been really disrupted in Iraq and Iran.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I just don't think you can love 'Gaia' while being alienated from humanity--this is the difference between indigenous culture and 'modern.'

I totally agree, hope I didn't come across as saying otherwise.

Mac thanks for the link, haven't read it yet but hopefully will... (In fact that link looks good enough that you are welcome to harasss me till I do read it.)