The Anti-Civilization Thread

[z/m(Ret)]

Maybe someone (Ziggy?) can suggest something even more reactionary or up to date.

The call for sustainable development is all over the internet, magazines and books. The call for radical action is a little more rare but diffused enough to be noticed. Short list of books I've read recently:

Derrick Jensen, Endgame, vol. 1: The problem of Civilization and vol. 2: Resistance

José Bové and Gilles Luneau, Pour la désobéissance Civique

Michael Alberts, Participatory Economics (Parecon)

And a link to an Ecology Watch I often browse through:

http://www.zmag.org/ecolideas.htm

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Not that great, but obviously, I don't believe that nonsense like Kyoto is the answer.

I agree, so what do we do then?

 

[Kepler]

Is the destruction of our environment a choice we, the people, made democratically? If we check the records, the answer is a clear "NO". Countless number of polls show that people put the environmental issue ahead of economy.

The choice was made more than democratically. Elections only come every 4 years or so. People vote by their actions every day.

People could choose to:

• buy only locally produced, in-season food. The vast majority don't.
• car pool to work or school. The vast majority don't.
• buy smaller cars. The trend until just recently was in the other direction.
• lower the thermostat in winter, and minimize AC use in the summer. The vast majority don't.
• etc.

All these actions would not only help the environment, they would save everyone lots of money. But the people have spoken, and despite what they tell pollsters, the reality is that they don't really care. Not if it will cause them one iota of inconvenience.

The fault is not in our politicians or in the industrialists which furnish us with what we desire. It is in ourselves.

 

[Rexroth]

The fault is not in our politicians or in the industrialists which furnish us with what we desire. It is in ourselves.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. Desire is neither stable, static nor inherent. Rather, it, like consciousness, is something which is shaped, moulded and manufactured.

See in this connection Willaim Leiss:

Social Communication in Advertising: Consumption in the Mediated Marketplace

and/or

The Limits to Satisfaction: An Essay on the Problem of Needs and Commodities

 

[z/m(Ret)]

The fault is not in our politicians or in the industrialists which furnish us with what we desire. It is in ourselves.

With this statement, you are supporting the idea that politicians' and industrialists' actions are in strict accordance with the population's desires but, again, your perspective is focused uniquely on the rich Westen part of the world, i.e. the populations who benefit right now from other populations' privations and sufferings: Columbian villagers don't abuse the environment with SUV's because most of them can't afford SUV's or any vehicle, including bicycles. East Timorese, whose parents have been either killed or deported in the name of the sacro-saint economy (lots of minerals in East Timor, hint hint) also don"t car pool to go to work because, for a great majority of them, there's no work.

People in need represent the bulk of world's population: are they the ones creating the excessive demand for energy and luxury items when most of them would be happy to found fresh water and enough rice to feed their kids?

(Desire is) something which is shaped, moulded and manufactured.

Precisely.

 

[Kepler]

your perspective is focused uniquely on the rich Westen part of the world, i.e. the populations who benefit right now from other populations' privations and sufferings:

We are not the ones causing the suffering of the third world. They would keep on suffering even if all the western world was wiped out tomorrow. A huge part of the problem in these areas is undemocratic governments which respect neither civil liberties nor property rights. The very opposite of what brought wealth to the western world.

In fact, it is thanks to world trade between nations that these parts of the world are now seeing their standard of living rise. The very slow creep toward property rights and minimal political freedom in China and other countries is also helping.

East Timorese, whose parents have been either killed or deported in the name of the sacro-saint economy

They are not being killed in the name of the economy. A free market would be just as happy to pay them as anyone else. They are being killed because their local government is corrupt and is stealing money that should otherwise go to them.

Too many people want to blame "The West" for everything, and totally excuse local dictatorships and assorted problems.

Desire is neither stable, static nor inherent. Rather, it, like consciousness, is something which is shaped, moulded and manufactured.

Specific desires vary with what's in fashion. But a desire for comfort and "luxury" is clearly ingrained in our consciousness.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

We are not the ones causing the suffering of the third world. They would keep on suffering even if all the western world was wiped out tomorrow. A huge part of the problem in these areas is undemocratic governments which respect neither civil liberties nor property rights. The very opposite of what brought wealth to the western world.

Sure, right, ok, whatever you want to believe...

 

[Kepler]

Kepler, and why is it that those governments are so undemocratic? What are the reasons for that? One could say that it is precisely because of the economic situation of those country.

Well, looking at the history of the western world, we started off as very undemocratic. It is not a coincidence that as political freedoms, property rights, and investments in science rose, the western world became richer.

There are also elements of a virtuous circle at work: the richer people get, the more political freedoms and guarantees they desire (Eg: China today, Britain at the time of the Magna Carta, etc.).

For an interesting take on why the western world got ahead of the rest of the world, I recommend Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel". (Though I don't think he gives enough weight to cultural factors).

Economic situation to wich we contribute.

Our trade with China, for example, has helped raise millions of people there out of poverty. Why do you think they want to trade with us?

 

[JustBob]

Too many people want to blame "The West" for everything, and totally excuse local dictatorships and assorted problems.

I tend to agree. Constantly blaming the West, globalization and the free-market economy for all the world problems is often just a knee-jerk reaction type of argument which does not stand to closer scrutiny. There are however, instances where rapid economic development in under-developed nations has largely contributed to an increased gap between the rich and the poor, but in a lot of cases and in the long run, even the poor have seen their standard of living rise. Moreover, it's silly to completely disregard tyrants, dictatorships, and various autocratic regimes as the cause of some country's ills and/or view them as consequences of "oppression" by the West.

Of course, this doesn't sit well with the type of antiquated anarcho-leftist ideology our friend Ziggy is trying to peddle.

 

[Kepler]

Kepler, thanks for the recommendation. You did not answer my question though.

The planet as a whole started out as "poor". The West developed democracy and pulled itself out of poverty. Look at Eastern Europe today: still poorer than Western Europe, but getting richer by the day since democratic reforms were implimented.

Therefore, it's clear that the bad economic situation is not what causes dictatorships. Rather, it is dictatorships which cause and perpetuate a bad economic situation.

As to why those places are still stuck in dictatorships while we have democracy? Jared Diamond proposes a very interesting theory. I think it has some merit. I would add to his ideas the fact that culture and religion are very important factors.

About China... By making business with them, sadly, we are also supporting their oppression of Tibet.

Tibet is screwed no matter what we do. This is very sad. But it's a fact of life. The best we can hope for is to engage China economically and eventually pressure it into respecting human rights. Tibet will never again be free.

Unless you support an armed confrontation to liberate Tibet.

 

[Kepler]

It's hard to argue with you since I did not read Jared Diamond's theory.

For a short synopsis (with critiques):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_Germs_and_Steel

Basically, he says we had tremendous environmental advantages (kinds of livestock available, shape of continents, germs, mountainous European terrain favouring small, autonomous, competing monarchies, etc.).

But I do agree that religion can be part of the problem.

It's a large part of the problem in many societies. For example, in Islam "interest on loans" is illegal. This hampers economic activity tremendously as people find it harder to borrow to buy their house, start their business, etc.

About Tibet... Don't you think the time to put pressure on China has already come??

And we are in fact pressuring it. But what else can we do? We also pressure them on respecting Taiwan's independence. And on general human rights. And on pollution. And on 1000 other very important fronts.

We can't force them to comply with our demands.

And if we could force them, all kids of people would come onto this board and whine about how we're imposing our "western centric values" on them.

As for an armed confrontation... I think it would be suicidal to be at war with China. Also, we have to respect the pacifist philosophy of Tibetans and act accordingly to their wishes.

The USA could not occupy China. But they could wipe it out. China has very few (or no) long range missiles capable of reaching US shores. Yet.

As for Tibet's pacifist philosophy? It's responsible for the fact that their homeland is now lost to them. In 50 years China's policy of assimilation will be complete. Tibetans, as a culture, will be wiped out.

 

[Agrippa]

I have a very, very limited bugdet. I should be doing all my shopping at Wallmart and paying all my produce cheap I can't afford to think about where what I buy comes from, but I buy beef that's two times more expensive than the stuff at the grocery because at least I know where it came from-- and I can thank the person who brings it to the market for me to buy.

traveller_76, I immensely admire this! Bravo!

Even something so basic as orange juice is more expensive than a Coke, crazy isn't it ! Sometimes, for lunch, I go out of my way and pay much more money for a smaller, but healthier, and (maybe more importantly to me at this point in time), tastier meal. Unfortunately the norm is that I go for some fast food that's cheaper and fattening... it requires discipline to do what you do! If given the choice I think most people would pick the healthier cattle, the not-mistreated cattle, the less pollution causing cattle (brought in over a long distance) but that's the root of the problem, it costs too much. It costs too much to do the right thing. Isn't that an absurd statement?! Sigh.

But then, won't the wages be made to rise to counter inflation, and won't government subsidize industry more?

Only if we were living in a socialist country...

Aside from, maybe, Bombardier getting subsidies, the farmer that pays for gas to bring their produce down to the (Jean-Talon) market is stuck paying the extra gas price. The cost gets passed on to us... inflation... the problem is, this is an operating expense. It's not like the farmers wages have risen because they charged more for the produce. (And can therefore afford to buy whatever other inflated thing they might need). Their profit are the same, it's just that a larger percentage of the money they received goes towards paying for gas.

I don't think this would be a solution to this dire problem.

 

[Agrippa]

An entire lexicon exists to explain/justify the extinction of migrating salmons but the word "terrorism" is nowhere to be found.

Thanks for answering my question!

Elsewhere in the thread you mentionned disobedience, I'm pulling out my copy of Thoreau... I think that's the right word to describe what we should be doing. It's just that (in the eyes of the law) with such a broad definition of terrorism just about everything is encompassed within it.

Destruction of property -> terrorism.
Graffiti -> terrorism​

I like your definition of terrorism much more than their's. I guess it's not something that would hold up as an argument if one got arrested, but absolutely true, I'm surprised this is the first time I've heard it argued this way (and that I didn't think of it this way myself)!

I've looked up Derrick Jensen's Endgame, Volume 1: The Problem of Civilization and Endgame, Volume 2: Resistance I'm intrugied... I think I'll try and get around to reading it/them very soon.

I, like most people, started with Adbusters... I've stopped reading though, they weren't really 'speaking to me' anymore. I don't remeber what my critque was back then, but I because of this I stopped.

 

[Agrippa]

A huge part of the problem in these areas is undemocratic governments which respect neither civil liberties nor property rights. The very opposite of what brought wealth to the western world.

Sure, right, ok, whatever you want to believe...

I'm not convinced that civil liberties and property rights are what brought wealth to 'us.' I think it's more the ability to exploit, but anyhow, that's for another post. But I would say that I am also under the impression that it's the corrupt African regimes and weird beliefs that are perpetuating whatever problems that might be there. The West sends them funds, and (it seems to me) it goes into financing some dictator's pet project rather than a hospital or setting up farms or whatever the money might have been intended for.

It doesn't help that some religious zealots are preaching not to use condoms and that abstinence is the 'cure.' This is not realistic. Consequence; more HIV infected people.

Though, Kepler, our trade with China, hasn't made everyone well off. The communist gov't maybe, the factory owner somewhat, but the workers are getting the short end of the stick, that's for sure! They trade with us only because they want our money. Not our morals, political system or culture.

Anyhow, if anyone can explain to me that we are still the root of all the problems in Africa (aside from blood diamonds), I'm all ears.

 

[Kepler]

I'm not convinced that civil liberties and property rights are what brought wealth to 'us.'

Without civil liberties, there is no chance to critique the government or correct it's policies. We don't have a government which every MERB member finds perfect, but it's a lot better than in most countries because we can speak out, petition, and vote.

Without property rights, people can't own the product of their work. There is little incentive to make your farm more productive, or to innovate and create new companies.

The West sends them funds, and (it seems to me) it goes into financing some dictator's pet project

We have limited means of ensuring the money doesn't get diverted. Remember, it's their country, and their laws. The local governments control the police, taxation authorities, etc.

Though, Kepler, our trade with China, hasn't made everyone well off.

Nothing, least of all Communism, has made all Chinese well off. But our trade has raised the living standards of tens of millions ( http://tinyurl.com/2h24bg ) of Chinese people.

 

[Agrippa]

Think of Global warming as Mother Nature's way of balancing things in the world.

I know what you mean but I'd like to point out that it's not Us vs Gaia. We are part of nature, of the ecosystem. we give and take (albeit more) just like all organisms. We need to stop thinking that we are above it, and recognize that we are a part of it! As pointed out somewhere in the thread, fauna has just as much a right to exist as we do.

I think that religion plays a (now muted, but originally) big role in all this. At least monotheistic religions based on the Old Testament. In Genesis God makes the world for man. The world is there for us to exploit. Man names it, it is his, he owns it.

One argument bandied around by the Christian Right is that none of this matters, God will put an end to this anyhow. This is a ridiculous explanation nowadays, but it would have been quite sufficient for the last 2 millenia...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Of course, this doesn't sit well with the type of antiquated anarcho-leftist ideology our friend Ziggy is trying to peddle.

There also exist names to describe the ideology our friend JustBob is trying to peddle. Let's not go there...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

But according to you, what kind of disobedience would help the environmental cause?

The logic of the Capital says this: "If I have a glass of water to spare, I would use it to extract 1 gram of gold rather than growing a tomato because 1 gram of gold will up our economy by $25 whereas a tomato will only generate a $0.10 return." This logic is being challenged in several parts of the world through various forms of action. The example of Bolivia comes to mind, read this.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

why is it that those governments are so undemocratic? What are the reasons for that?

Who once said, speaking of one of world's history most prominent tyrant, "He's a thug but at least he's our thug"?

 

[Agrippa]

The Corporation

The example of Bolivia comes to mind, read this.

Bolivia's struggle with the privatization of water is quite a story!

I haven't read your link yet so I don't know where they're at at this point in time, but I would HIGHLY recommend the following documentary if any of you have not seen it yet. The Corporation DVD or The Corporation (Two-Disc Special Edition) (second DVD features outtakes of the interviews).

The main premise is that the 14th amendment states that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Somehow lawyers and judges have redefined the corporation (which originally had limited powers/mandate/monies etc) to be a 'legal person' which now allows it to accumulate property, wealth, just like any other person.

The jump that is then made is that if the corporation is indeed a person, what kind of person would it be? The documentary goes on to convincingly demonstrate that if 'the corporation' were to lie down on a psychologist's couch, it would be diagnosed as a psychopath!

(The Bolivians struggle is featured towards the end of the documentary.)

Edit: The link Ziggy posted does not mention the fact that the city of Cochabamba needed to upgrade their water filtration facilities (or something technical of that sort). The World Bank insisted that it be privatized in order to qualify for a loan so it was sold to Bechtel. During the privatization proceedings, somehow lawyers managed to work some insane clause to owning all the water in Bolivia (or maybe Cochabamba). Regardless, basically if one were to put a barrel outside of one's house and collect rain water, this would be stealing and the individual would be liable to a fine!

You might like to browse: http://www.thecorporation.com/