Baltimorei

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

Does Jensen say we will deconstruct society? My interpretation is that he's saying we must if we don't want to become extinct, but we probably won't. Closer to your POV than you think, in other words.

---

If I recall correctly from my reading of Endgame, he thinks that the natural course of civilization has an apocalyptic endgame--he doesn't specify exactly how it will come about, but its cause will be the consumptive, exploitative nature of civilization. Therefore, civilization will do itself in. He also feels that the more we speed that process up by revolting against civilization, the better for the natural world (and for us, too--as we ARE a part of the natural world).

He would like to see all this happen before we wind up destroying everything. Nature will rebound, but it would be better to not have to start from square one.

Here's one of the Premises of his book:

Quote:

---

Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.

---

I just remembered what this discussion reminds me of, True Detective, Season One, Episode One.

Rustin Cohle (Matthew McConaughey): I think human consciousness was a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself.
We are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, this accretion of sensory experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody when, in fact, everybody's nobody. I think the honorable thing for species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.
So what's the point of getting out bed in the morning? I tell myself I bear witness, but the real answer is that it's obviously my programming, and I lack the constitution for suicide.

Martin Hart (Woody Harrelson): My luck, I picked today to get to know you.

Wonderfully apt, Alan. I keep meaning to binge watch that.

Good one, Alan!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

What about frameworks to think about sustainability? Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_Step

---

I've always thought this is a superb approach. As an engineer/scientist/mathematician it has great appeal, as it lays out the system conditions that seem likely to allow a long-enduring culture to survive. You can of course argue about the particular conditions, but I think the overall approach of laying out the guidelines is very productive, and to me seems one of the few ways to avoid collapse, die-off, or some of the other bad paths.

You can't have honest conversations about these ideas these days with most people though - they rathole into flinging thought-terminating clichés back-and-forth, demonize each other, and make no progress. Meanwhile, time marches on....

Good luck back over there on the mainland.

I really liked The Natural Step too, thanks ANM. And I find myself surprisingly ok with the idea of focusing on enterprise, as long as the rest of the tree comes first. Although I know that there's nothing wrong with business per se, I could never get to the point of agreeing with the idea because as it's practiced, it takes virtually nothing but itself into account. This new tree is very tasty food for thought.

ETA: earlier today I was thinking that Joel Salatin's sustainable farming method's main difference is time. The way he does things, you have to wait for the grass to regenerate before you can feed more cows. You have to wait for the flies to lay eggs before the chickens can forage. And here the idea is again, six hours later: manufacture no faster than the natural materials can replenish themselves. Funny how ideas clump together like this.

You really should start new threads about these subjects. You are missing a lot of valuable input by people who haveno interest in Baltimore and politics however may have much to add about theories and subjects like sustainability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

How about a combination of a little 1 and a little 4. Combined with a little bit of option #6, which might be stated as, "overhaul human nature".

---

I think you will find human nature extremely resistant to being redesigned to whatever specifications you may have in mind. That's it's charm.

[QUOTE=

Good luck back over there on the mainland.[/QUOTE]

Plan on sitting out Armageddon, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kib

Another observation of mine is that nearly everything we do that is a problem has to do with instant gratification. I don't just want it, I want it NOW.

---

Brings up another idea that we touch on often, but (as a society) we tend to ignore. There's an interesting, and I think important, difference between wanting it now and needing it now. If a storm is blowing in you need shelter now. If the tribe is starving you need to hunt or gather now. Pretty basic stuff. Once that kind of need was met there was usually plenty of free time for music, dancing, storytelling, creating art, napping, etc. The good stuff. We all know that, but somehow we've made the two pronged transition from "us" being the tribe to "us" as the individual and blurring the lines between what we really need and what we just want. That's preaching to the choir in here, but regardless of how tired the words can be the whole notion is still close to the root of a lot of evils in my corner of the world.