Mark Prado
10-16-2010, 07:27 AM
The remarks below are for the Earth At Risk 1-day conference in San Francisco today (16 Oct 2010) by Derrick Jensen. While I don't agree with many things that Derrick Jensen writes (after researching him today), I do agree with much of what I quote below from www.EarthAtRisk.net which is about today's conference, though I've deleted the parts I object to. He has some books out from the past which have some extreme things which I consider crazy, but he also has some good refined points these days...
Notably, his number of the rate of extinctions per day is about twice the rate I've typically seen from other sources. Even at half that rate, it's still staggering, and about 100 to 1000 times the average before modern times. Also, there's no need to cite extremely high estimates of destruction of natural areas because even the lower range of the credible estimates is still very alarming. It's important to be accurate and realistic.
It's a 1 day conference today, which an old friend forwarded to me, so I'll comment on it today.
http://www.forumlog.com/nanobiotechnologyspace/showthread.php?t=479#
More notes after the block quote.
<blockquote>"... this culture is killing the planet.
"One hundred and twenty species were driven extinct today. Another 120 will be driven extinct tomorrow. And the day after. And the day after.
"Ninety-seven percent of native forests are gone. Ninety-nine percent of native grasslands. Amphibian populations are collapsing, migratory songbird populations are collapsing, mollusk populations are collapsing, fish populations are collapsing, and so on.
"Ninety percent of the large fish in the oceans are gone. There is six to ten times as much plastic as phytoplankton in much of the oceans. ... The oceans are being murdered.
"Nearly all rivers in the US (and world) are dammed. Dams are the death of rivers [for many migratory and upstream spawning species]. ...
"Big cats are going. Great apes are going. ...
"Why do members of this culture act as they do? Well, we can discuss (and I have in book after book) reason after reason, whether it is this culture’s system of social rewards (it generally socially rewards behaviors that benefit the individual at the expense of the group, rather than behaviors that benefit the group as a whole), which leads inevitably to competition, and ultimately to atrocious behavior; or whether it is that a way of life based on constant conquest gives that culture a short-term competitive advantage over other groups who are organized sustainably (if you cut down forests and mine mountains to make war machines, you will probably have a more well-equipped army than a group that does not do this: this is not a hypothetical example: the forests of North Africa, to provide one example among far too many, were felled to build the Phoenician and Egyptian navies), while of course leading to the collapse of landbase after landbase; ...
[hence the subject of this posting, "The DOMINANT human mentality causing destruction of life on Earth"]
"... or whether it is that a way of life based on the importation of resources can never be sustainable; or whether it is that a way of life that produces waste products that do not benefit the natural world can never be sustainable; ...
"But I guess for now I’ll just say that many indigenous peoples have said to me that the fundamental difference between western and indigenous ways of being is that most westerners perceive the world as consisting of resources to be exploited, as opposed to other beings to enter into relationship with. And this is crucial, because how you perceive the world affects how you behave in the world. ...
"There is a great line by a Canadian lumberman: when I look at trees I see dollar bills. If when you look at trees you see dollar bills, you will treat them one way. If when you look at trees you see trees, you will treat them differently. [...] So part of the problem is that members of this culture perceive the world as consisting of resources. This is insanely narcissistic, indeed sociopathic. And of course it is destructive. ...
"Which leads to the final thing I guess I want to say for now, which is that another part of the problem is, and this is of course in line with the narcissism and sociopathy, perceived entitlement. This culture as a whole perceives itself as entitled to take whatever it is it wants. And many of its members individually perceive themselves as entitled to take whatever it is they want.
"God [and/or evolution] gave man dominion over the earth, after all. And it doesn’t much matter whether you believe God gave man dominion over the earth ... , if you believe you are somehow superior to these others—and it doesn’t matter whether these others are nonhumans, women, children, the indigenous, members of other races or classes: anyone other than the “Chosen People”—then you can easily come to believe that it is acceptable for you to take ...
"... you cannot act as though the world consists of resources to be exploited unless you believe—deeply, oftentimes beyond conscious statement—the world was made (or evolved) for you.
"I recently got into an argument with a high school science teacher who believes this culture won’t collapse, because “we will find better and better ways to exploit our resources and maintain our way of living while still protecting our forests and oceans and the rest of our environment.” Leave aside the utter lack of historical or current evidence for this possibility, and leave aside that humans have grossly exceeded carrying capacity, meaning his statement is also physically impossible ... I pointed out to him that forests and oceans are not ours but that they belong to themselves, and have lives and relationships all their own. I pointed out to him that resources do not exist, that perceiving a tree or fish or river as a resource means you are, as he stated, perceiving it as something to be “exploited” and not as something with its own life, own desires, independent of him, that was not put here for him. ... Even though he does not believe in Christianity, and even though he does not believe God created the world for him, or that God created the world at all, his belief that the world was made for him to use remains such a deeply fundamentalist article of faith that it is entirely invisible to him: from his perspective it is not faith, but simply the way the world is, and it is utterly inconceivable to him that any other way of perceiving is possible, even when at least one other way has been laid out before him. I may as well have been quacking like a duck.
"The fundamental religion of this culture is that of human dominion, and it does not matter so much whether one self-identifies as a Christian, a Capitalist, a Scientist, or just a regular member of this culture, one’s actions will be to promulgate this fundamentalist religion of unbridled entitlement and exploitation. This religion permeates every aspect of this culture. This is a big problem, a problem big enough that it is killing the planet."
</blockquote>
His statistics on species extinctions differ from others' statistics, more or less, but the more you research it from credible scientific sources, the more disturbing it is, even where it's much less, as it's still massive destruction and carelessness. In geologic time, we are witnessing one of the great mass extinction periods on Earth, with extinction rates 100 to 1000 times greater per unit time than the average in history before the advent of humans and technology.
I have flown over many countries and looked down from the airplane and wondered "Where are there any forests or natural grasslands?"
International waters are also being fished by nets kilometers long which sweep up everything in the way. There are no police in international waters stopping this. (There are military warships, but they are interested only in other humans and countries.)
When is enough enough, to save the remaining jungles, wetlands, grasslands, and sea life?
About Derrick Jensen, he seems to be an extremist, pushing people to reject industrial society. That extremism I also reject.
In my opinion, industrial society is very important for progress and advancement, not the problem.
In fact, there are technological solutions to many of these problems.
The problem is that most people are not interested in those technological solutions, or even in simple choice solutions such as switching to paper or cloth bags instead of plastics. For example, some of the grocery stores here in Bangkok tried to promote cloth bags to help cut back on plastic in the environment, even promoting fashionable cloth bags and their advantages such as strength, but people simply didn't choose it.
The problem is that most people are not interested in the greater good, recycling, or compromising on some things -- such as cutting back on energy consumption by driving smaller cars, turning down the air conditioning or heater (wear more clothes), not eating shark fin soup, consuming alternative foods, and so on.
There are technological solutions to many of our problems, but we will choose the cheapest, most comfortable, or most convenient choices.
Politicians will not dare promote alternatives because they won't be voted in by the majority.
Most people who do talk the talk will still not actually walk the walk.
There are very large numbers of good people in this world who walk the walk. These people are just a tiny percentage of the 6 billion.
When we colonize space, we will need a subset of people who will be a lot more cooperative and focused on the overriding best interests of the group, a selected group.
First, we need more special people to support our goals.
Before we destroy our own species on Earth for the same underlying reasons we are destroying other species and the environment.
Notably, his number of the rate of extinctions per day is about twice the rate I've typically seen from other sources. Even at half that rate, it's still staggering, and about 100 to 1000 times the average before modern times. Also, there's no need to cite extremely high estimates of destruction of natural areas because even the lower range of the credible estimates is still very alarming. It's important to be accurate and realistic.
It's a 1 day conference today, which an old friend forwarded to me, so I'll comment on it today.
http://www.forumlog.com/nanobiotechnologyspace/showthread.php?t=479#
More notes after the block quote.
<blockquote>"... this culture is killing the planet.
"One hundred and twenty species were driven extinct today. Another 120 will be driven extinct tomorrow. And the day after. And the day after.
"Ninety-seven percent of native forests are gone. Ninety-nine percent of native grasslands. Amphibian populations are collapsing, migratory songbird populations are collapsing, mollusk populations are collapsing, fish populations are collapsing, and so on.
"Ninety percent of the large fish in the oceans are gone. There is six to ten times as much plastic as phytoplankton in much of the oceans. ... The oceans are being murdered.
"Nearly all rivers in the US (and world) are dammed. Dams are the death of rivers [for many migratory and upstream spawning species]. ...
"Big cats are going. Great apes are going. ...
"Why do members of this culture act as they do? Well, we can discuss (and I have in book after book) reason after reason, whether it is this culture’s system of social rewards (it generally socially rewards behaviors that benefit the individual at the expense of the group, rather than behaviors that benefit the group as a whole), which leads inevitably to competition, and ultimately to atrocious behavior; or whether it is that a way of life based on constant conquest gives that culture a short-term competitive advantage over other groups who are organized sustainably (if you cut down forests and mine mountains to make war machines, you will probably have a more well-equipped army than a group that does not do this: this is not a hypothetical example: the forests of North Africa, to provide one example among far too many, were felled to build the Phoenician and Egyptian navies), while of course leading to the collapse of landbase after landbase; ...
[hence the subject of this posting, "The DOMINANT human mentality causing destruction of life on Earth"]
"... or whether it is that a way of life based on the importation of resources can never be sustainable; or whether it is that a way of life that produces waste products that do not benefit the natural world can never be sustainable; ...
"But I guess for now I’ll just say that many indigenous peoples have said to me that the fundamental difference between western and indigenous ways of being is that most westerners perceive the world as consisting of resources to be exploited, as opposed to other beings to enter into relationship with. And this is crucial, because how you perceive the world affects how you behave in the world. ...
"There is a great line by a Canadian lumberman: when I look at trees I see dollar bills. If when you look at trees you see dollar bills, you will treat them one way. If when you look at trees you see trees, you will treat them differently. [...] So part of the problem is that members of this culture perceive the world as consisting of resources. This is insanely narcissistic, indeed sociopathic. And of course it is destructive. ...
"Which leads to the final thing I guess I want to say for now, which is that another part of the problem is, and this is of course in line with the narcissism and sociopathy, perceived entitlement. This culture as a whole perceives itself as entitled to take whatever it is it wants. And many of its members individually perceive themselves as entitled to take whatever it is they want.
"God [and/or evolution] gave man dominion over the earth, after all. And it doesn’t much matter whether you believe God gave man dominion over the earth ... , if you believe you are somehow superior to these others—and it doesn’t matter whether these others are nonhumans, women, children, the indigenous, members of other races or classes: anyone other than the “Chosen People”—then you can easily come to believe that it is acceptable for you to take ...
"... you cannot act as though the world consists of resources to be exploited unless you believe—deeply, oftentimes beyond conscious statement—the world was made (or evolved) for you.
"I recently got into an argument with a high school science teacher who believes this culture won’t collapse, because “we will find better and better ways to exploit our resources and maintain our way of living while still protecting our forests and oceans and the rest of our environment.” Leave aside the utter lack of historical or current evidence for this possibility, and leave aside that humans have grossly exceeded carrying capacity, meaning his statement is also physically impossible ... I pointed out to him that forests and oceans are not ours but that they belong to themselves, and have lives and relationships all their own. I pointed out to him that resources do not exist, that perceiving a tree or fish or river as a resource means you are, as he stated, perceiving it as something to be “exploited” and not as something with its own life, own desires, independent of him, that was not put here for him. ... Even though he does not believe in Christianity, and even though he does not believe God created the world for him, or that God created the world at all, his belief that the world was made for him to use remains such a deeply fundamentalist article of faith that it is entirely invisible to him: from his perspective it is not faith, but simply the way the world is, and it is utterly inconceivable to him that any other way of perceiving is possible, even when at least one other way has been laid out before him. I may as well have been quacking like a duck.
"The fundamental religion of this culture is that of human dominion, and it does not matter so much whether one self-identifies as a Christian, a Capitalist, a Scientist, or just a regular member of this culture, one’s actions will be to promulgate this fundamentalist religion of unbridled entitlement and exploitation. This religion permeates every aspect of this culture. This is a big problem, a problem big enough that it is killing the planet."
</blockquote>
His statistics on species extinctions differ from others' statistics, more or less, but the more you research it from credible scientific sources, the more disturbing it is, even where it's much less, as it's still massive destruction and carelessness. In geologic time, we are witnessing one of the great mass extinction periods on Earth, with extinction rates 100 to 1000 times greater per unit time than the average in history before the advent of humans and technology.
I have flown over many countries and looked down from the airplane and wondered "Where are there any forests or natural grasslands?"
International waters are also being fished by nets kilometers long which sweep up everything in the way. There are no police in international waters stopping this. (There are military warships, but they are interested only in other humans and countries.)
When is enough enough, to save the remaining jungles, wetlands, grasslands, and sea life?
About Derrick Jensen, he seems to be an extremist, pushing people to reject industrial society. That extremism I also reject.
In my opinion, industrial society is very important for progress and advancement, not the problem.
In fact, there are technological solutions to many of these problems.
The problem is that most people are not interested in those technological solutions, or even in simple choice solutions such as switching to paper or cloth bags instead of plastics. For example, some of the grocery stores here in Bangkok tried to promote cloth bags to help cut back on plastic in the environment, even promoting fashionable cloth bags and their advantages such as strength, but people simply didn't choose it.
The problem is that most people are not interested in the greater good, recycling, or compromising on some things -- such as cutting back on energy consumption by driving smaller cars, turning down the air conditioning or heater (wear more clothes), not eating shark fin soup, consuming alternative foods, and so on.
There are technological solutions to many of our problems, but we will choose the cheapest, most comfortable, or most convenient choices.
Politicians will not dare promote alternatives because they won't be voted in by the majority.
Most people who do talk the talk will still not actually walk the walk.
There are very large numbers of good people in this world who walk the walk. These people are just a tiny percentage of the 6 billion.
When we colonize space, we will need a subset of people who will be a lot more cooperative and focused on the overriding best interests of the group, a selected group.
First, we need more special people to support our goals.
Before we destroy our own species on Earth for the same underlying reasons we are destroying other species and the environment.