View Full Version : Review: Bright Green Lies
catherine
3-12-21, 11:26am
Just finished Bright Green Lies by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Max Wilbert. Very provocative.
Its premise is that mainstream environmentalists are asking the wrong questions. The question is not: What technologies will save life as we know it given the existential threats to our planet--in other words, how can we humans perpetuate our current lifestyle by tweaking the environment?
The real question is: What do we have to do to save the planet--planet meaning everything on the planet? All the life forms that are systematically being destroyed--human and non-human life forms big and small--how do we preserve the interconnectedness of life? How do we get to the point where it is important to save life for its own sake?
To that end, he really challenges the mainstream environmentalists' solutions like solar, wind, and other energy systems like hydroelectric, biomass, etc. He also challenges recycling programs and progress in the name of efficiency.
I've read Jensen's other books, most notably Endgame I and II, so I know that he believes that civilization is the problem. We can't save the planet and save civilization, too. He cites all the civilizations going back to the the dawn of agriculture, which have eventually failed because of the decimation of their land base. We are different. We are destroying our land base in record time because of industry and technology. So then what?
Unlike Bezos who feels we just shove off and resign Earth to a planetary recycling heap, Jensen/Keith/Wilbert believe it is better to take off our blinders and do something to save the wholesale destruction of the planet. And by taking off our blinders, he means stop thinking that politics and industry can solve the problem for us, because they can't. The upholders of our current systems are reframing the issue in terms of what's best for them--meaning more power and more money, and neither of those things are going to save us. As for us, we need to do what we can to promote, in our own ways, the restoration of of the earth--vigorously--as if it were our own homes burning down. Which it is.
Seems to me like all this talk about technologies saving the planet is in the end, just another way to make money which always seems to be the most important thing. I hear more and more talk locally about changing the way we eat, travel, shop, grow food etc so those I feel are about all we as ordinary citizens can do. There is a small underground of people who want to live sustainably and are doing so but not nearly enough to "save" us. I will check out the book.
iris lilies
3-12-21, 11:58am
I don’t mean to be rude here but my summary thought is—Is this supposed to be new ecothought? Is the copyright on this book something recent? It does not seem recent.
The declining birth rate seems like a promising step to me. So does the burgeoning renewable energy industry. I'm not a pessimist by nature.
catherine
3-12-21, 12:47pm
The declining birth rate seems like a promising step to me. So does the burgeoning renewable energy industry. I'm not a pessimist by nature.
His response to you would be:
a) Yes: global education for women is key.
b) The renewable energy industry is fraught with its own problems (according to him--he outlines the challenges very well, but I don't have the time at the moment to synthesize.).
I'm the eternal optimist, and I don't think it's being pessimistic to consider that an alternative way of life wouldn't be better for humans and non-humans. That's where my optimism lies.
catherine
3-12-21, 12:50pm
I don’t mean to be rude here but my summary thought is—Is this supposed to be new ecothought? Is the copyright on this book something recent? It does not seem recent.
No, Derrick Jensen has been around for a long time writing about the same thesis about civilization, but this particular book is directed at really looking at the goals and motivations of the mainstream environmentalists, so we don't wind up being misled into thinking it will solve all the problems. He references Rachel Carson and how her motivation was to save the flora and fauna, out of a deep respect for all life; versus Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben who are interested in doing what we can to save civilization. Two different ways of thinking.
iris lilies
3-12-21, 1:04pm
No, Derrick Jensen has been around for a long time writing about the same thesis about civilization, but this particular book is directed at really looking at the goals and motivations of the mainstream environmentalists, so we don't wind up being misled into thinking it will solve all the problems. He references Rachel Carson and how her motivation was to save the flora and fauna, out of a deep respect for all life; versus Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben who are interested in doing what we can to save civilization. Two different ways of thinking.
As someone who does not read in this area, still yet, I know the ideas.I think we all know these ideas by osmosis the things leaking into our brain via cheddar on the Internet and news and etc.
The saving of mankind versus the saving of the earth is a conflict well in the forefront of mainstream ecological thought. However, I disagree with jensen’s or (or your?) idea that “mainstream” environmentalists are those who look to technology to solve these enormous problems. Is my impression that they are sidelined by the purest like Jensen.
However, as I said I don’t read in this area and just absorb bits here and there, so if eco warriors who push science advancement are indeed the main pstream then I guess I’m happy about that.
The saving of mankind versus the saving of the earth is a conflict well in the forefront of mainstream ecological thought. However, I disagree with jensen’s or (or your?) idea that “mainstream” environmentalists are those who look to technology to solve these enormous problems. Is my impression that they are sidelined by the purest like Jensen.
What you say used to be true, but as technology with solutions from solar/wind/water/biofuel grows (and the money that can be made and the lifestyle that can be preserved) , the "technology will save us" group is growing and now sidelining "Deep Greens." Interestingly, as a prelude to the book the authors outline a continuum of environmentalists:
In short:
Deep Greens: Humans must live within the limits of the natural world, so drastic transformation needs to occur.
Lifestylists: Humans depends on nature, but political involvement is impossible or unnecessary, so the best we can do is practice self-reliance and other personal solutions
Bright Greens: Green technology and design and ethical consumerism will allow a modern, high-energy lifestyle to continue. "It's less about nature--it's more about us."
Wise Use/Environmental Managers: Problems are minor and can be solved through proper management. Natural resources should be protected primarily to enable continued extraction and human well-being
Cornucopians: Resources are infinite. Technology and the economic system will solve it all.
Technocrats/Transhumanists: Humans should transcend biology by investing heavily in technology. Leave Planet Earth behind in favor of cybernetic enhancement.
I haven't worked out where I am on this continuum.
It sounds like the premise behind the move Planet of the Humans.
It sounds like the premise behind the move Planet of the Humans.
Yeah, I saw that movie. And also all the controversy surrounding it--there were accusations of using old data and old footage and other inaccuracies. It is a similar premise for sure. As I consider whether to put solar panels on my house, and/or a wind turbine, I have to consider some these issues. I've heard it will be a bear to recycle all of these solar panels once the lifecycles of the first generation of them are done. Kind of like when the hotels tossed all their "perfectly good" TVs in favor of flat screens a decade or so back.
Any technology is going to have to answer to some of these issues, even if they do help to reduce fossil fuel use and carbon emissions. For the record, I think biofuel is a misguided solution because scaling it will mean destroying an important source of carbon capture in the process of trying to cut down carbon emissions.
ApatheticNoMore
3-12-21, 2:02pm
I don't think life without civilization in the broadest possible abstract would be much worth living (for other species maybe but then one is actually advocating voluntary human extinction at that point).
But I don't think *human* life would be much worth living, but one is going to be all "oh you mean transatlantic travel", NO I mean women not dying in childbirth at massive rates (like I've always said notice it's ALWAYS men advocating this....) But even if somehow it were and we were like "a bunch of women are just going to die in childbirth ho hum, so their average lifespan is 40, oh well", I don't think anyone from this culture can even imagine life without civilization, it's so far out there. So therefore I really think his thinking is a dead end, not just radical but so radical that it can't even serve as an ideal to work toward .. But notice it seems there has been civilization without massive fossil fuel use, what about the Roman empire? Technologically advanced in some ways no? LONG BEFORE the industrial revolution. Not utopia, not without exploitation - in fact slavery, not as advanced as now? No noone says that, I'm just thinking about technology.
But an alternative way of life? Well I think some kind of degrowth eco-socialism might be desirable. Because most of our real improvements to life due to technology may amount to a few things: oh yes modern medicine is one. So I try to read de-growth books to try to understand what it would look like (so I read Herman Daly's Beyond Growth, and I'm maybe 1/2 through Prosperity Without Growth), and I don't know yet, but it seems less of a complete dead end to try to imagine what such a world would be like with technology used appropriately, than just declaring: all civilization is bad.
Of course population is a big factor, if the population of the world was 2 or 3 billion rather than near 8 billion (and that is very recent) this would all be easier to deal with, it's easier to deal with at 8 billion than 12. A better life for less people would be better, but try to tell that to people (and no I don't advocate murder of already existing people, I advocate limitation of birth rates). People who advocate against population growth actually are advocating the EASY way, it is the easy compared to collapse sure, but also compared to trying to limit economic growth without limiting population growth. One can do things the easy way or the hard way.
The problem for solar etc. is we just add solar and keep on using the same amount of fossil fuels etc. because energy use keeps increasing. The problem is growth (fueled by population growth too). At the same energy use alternative energies would probably (eh yea even I don't know for certain as it's a total lifecycle cost thing) reduce fossil fuel use as they would replace some of it. But that's not what happened, energy use keeps growing.
As for big environmental movements? I think you have to be pretty naive and not really paying attention, to not realize most big advocacy things have their corruption, it doesn't mean they are entirely corrupt but ...
I don't think life without civilization in the broadest possible abstract would be much worth living (for other species maybe but then one is actually advocating voluntary human extinction at that point). But I don't think *human* life would be much worth living, but one is going to be all "oh you mean transatlantic travel", NO I mean women not dying in childbirth at massive rates (like I've always said notice it's ALWAYS men advocating this....) But even if somehow it were and we were like "a bunch of women are just going to die in childbirth ho hum" ... I don't think anyone from this culture can even imagine life without civilization, it's so far out there. So therefore I really think his thinking is a dead end, perhaps and interesting dead end but ..
But an alternative way of life? Well I think some kind of degrowth eco-socialism might be desirable. Because most of our real improvements to life due to technology may amount to a few things: oh yes modern medicine is one. So I try to read de-growth books to try to understand what it would look like (so I read Herman Daly's Beyond Growth, and I'm maybe 1/2 through Prosperity Without Growth), and I don't know yet, but it seems less of a complete dead end to try to imagine what such a world would be like with technology used appropriately, than just declaring: all civilization is bad.
Of course population is a big factor, if the population of the world was 2 or 3 billion rather than near 8 billion (and that is very recent) this would all be easier to deal with, it's easier to deal with at 8 billion than 12. A better life for less people would be better, but try to tell that to people (and no I don't advocate murder of already existing people, I advocate limitation of birth rates).
The problem for solar etc. is we just add solar and keep on using the same amount of fossil fuels etc. because energy use keeps increasing. The problem is growth (fueled by population growth too). At the same energy use alternative energies would probably (eh yea even I don't know for certain as it's a total lifecycle cost thing) reduce fossil fuel use as they would replace some of it. But that's not what happened, energy use keeps growing.
As for big environmental movements? I think you have to be pretty naive and not really paying attention, to not realize most big advocacy things have their corruption, it doesn't mean they are entirely corrupt but ...
Yeah, ANM, I think I'm on your page with the alternative of degrowth eco-socialism.. As you probably know, I'm a big fan of Charles Eisenstein (Sacred Economics, The Ascent of Humanity) who writes about benefits of negative growth (demurrage). The problem is getting people on board with this type of a counterintuitive mindset.
As for the Deep Green thinking, yes, I think that even those guys admit that it will take an apocalypse of some kind for that to happen. A Biblical Flood or a destruction of The Golden Calf/Tower of Babel as it were.
Thanks for mentioning those books by Daly--I'll have to check them out.
GeorgeParker
3-12-21, 3:19pm
Whatever things people say, whether good or bad morally, right or wrong scientifically, possible or impossible technologically.... None of it will make any difference unless it is possible to get the majority of people, politicians, and industries to agree that something needs to be done, what that 'something' is, how to make it happen, and above all everyone involved has to be willing to make whatever sacrifices are needed in order to make it happen.
I see no hope of that happening on any big or fast scale because almost no one is willing to make any real sacrifice, almost no one is willing to trust other people to reciprocate by making equal sacrifices, and above all the people and industries with the most wealth, power, and influence will always be the most reluctant to make any sacrifice at all because doing so would reduce their own wealth, power, and influence.
iris lilies
3-12-21, 3:44pm
Whatever things people say, whether good or bad morally, right or wrong scientifically, possible or impossible technologically.... None of it will make any difference unless it is possible to get the majority of people, politicians, and industries to agree that something needs to be done, what that 'something' is, how to make it happen, and above all everyone involved has to be willing to make whatever sacrifices are neededj in order to make it happen.
I see no hope of that happening on any big or fast scale because almost no one is willing to make any real sacrifice, almost no one is willing to trust other people to reciprocate by making equal sacrifices, and above all the people and industries with the most wealth, power, and influence will always be the most reluctant to make any sacrifice at all because doing so would reduce their own wealth, power, and influence.
Yes, I pretty much agree with this.
Yes, I pretty much agree with this.
Me too. :(
I agree that many of the environmental efforts have dubious results. What is the actual goal? I haven't read a clearly stated goal. Fewer people, less industry, limited occupation of landmass, more flora and fauna, reversal to primitive life practices, complete control of all life?
When was the earth perfect and ideally managed? Is it a myth?
ApatheticNoMore
3-12-21, 4:20pm
I agree that many of the environmental efforts have dubious results. What is the actual goal? I haven't read a clearly stated goal. Fewer people, less industry, limited occupation of landmass, more flora and fauna, reversal to primitive life practices, complete control of all life?
When was the earth perfect and ideally managed? Is it a myth?
The goal should be to live on earth without destroying the life support systems of the planet (via either using resources at a non-sustainable rate, or creating pollution at a rate greater than the biosphere can absorb - like with CO2). It's not that difficult a concept. An implementation, yea that's complex. How much of the planet should be left to other species and how much for humans is also an open question. But we're WAY beyond that as we're degrading not just life for other species but future human life.
But when you are talking about the modern environmental movement in 2021, in the U.S. anyway, it hardly exists. So what is the goal of who exactly, who are we talking about? Just Derick Jensen and company, then read the book I suppose. :) But as for any larger "environmental movement", yes there are groups fighting to preserve wilderness. All good, especially of the type of org that doesn't sell out (the Sierra club will often sell out, but even it does some good). There are policy ideas like the Green New Deal, but no they have not gotten anywhere in the U.S. really. Other countries have advanced further. And then there are big NGOs (sure the Sierra club but newer more prominent ones like the Sunrise movement for example) who claim to have good intentions but are subject to the grift such things are often subject to. They deserve some skepticism.
rosarugosa
3-12-21, 7:56pm
The planet would be so much better off without us humans.
The planet would be so much better off without us humans.
Not sure that I agree with this. Why are we less valuable and essential than whales and dolphins or elephants and eagles which are very intelligent creatures?
My very naive thought is that each part of creation is equally important. The difficulty is that humans cannot even agree that other humans are equally valuable.
Just finished Bright Green Lies by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Max Wilbert. Very provocative.
Unlike Bezos who feels we just shove off and resign Earth to a planetary recycling heap, Jensen/Keith/Wilbert believe it is better to take off our blinders and do something to save the wholesale destruction of the planet. And by taking off our blinders, he means stop thinking that politics and industry can solve the problem for us, because they can't. The upholders of our current systems are reframing the issue in terms of what's best for them--meaning more power and more money, and neither of those things are going to save us. As for us, we need to do what we can to promote, in our own ways, the restoration of of the earth--vigorously--as if it were our own homes burning down. Which it is.
Catherine, has Jensen changed his main message, or maybe is it more timely now? It has seemed to me like he could work on his presentation, but a good message. I kept up with a few of his earlier books and while I'm pretty much all in with parts of it I can also see how he could come of as a big of a crank or rant to the general public. They mostly seemed to revolve around a quote I mostly recall from an essay in the Orion, something like, recycling Styrofoam, driving a Prius, and taking short showers is not going to save the planet. And then the parts about activism.
I get his point, but actually have trouble reading his books because they are sort of a downer. I mentioned it to a friend who has also been a Jensen reader and he said he might try it when there is more sunshine.
Not sure that I agree with this. Why are we less valuable and essential than whales and dolphins or elephants and eagles which are very intelligent creatures?a
My very naive thought is that each part of creation is equally important. The difficulty is that humans cannot even agree that other humans are equally valuable.
I think if we "knew our place" we would be valuable but IMHO at this point we are not being good stewards.
I learned that there is a documentary coming out based on this book! Here's the website (https://www.universe.com/events/bright-green-lies-world-film-premiere-tickets-toronto-WL21KY?ref=ticketmaster&fbclid=IwAR2VVECvNca0pfOKO2VI79aS7g8EoEh2_isghwYdc-qc3LYTHcwuykwGi2k) for more information.
Here's the trailer:
<iframe title="vimeo-player" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/346171480" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
happystuff
3-28-21, 10:55am
The trailer link doesn't work for me, but the description on the website reminds me of Michael Moore's "Planet of the Humans".
catherine
3-28-21, 11:08am
The trailer link doesn't work for me, but the description on the website reminds me of Michael Moore's "Planet of the Humans".
Oh, well you can still see the trailer (if you're interested) in the link to the description..
It is very much along the same lines as Planet of the Humans.
happystuff
3-28-21, 11:24am
Oh, well you can still see the trailer (if you're interested) in the link to the description..
It is very much along the same lines as Planet of the Humans.
Thanks - I did find the trailer link. Yes, it seems very similar to Plant of the Humans.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.