Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Deep Ecology is bullshit

Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 29, 2014, 05:47:14 AM
Sums up the argument quite well:

Edit: Some introductory remarks, courtesy of a young Neoreactionary:

Quote
positions on environmentalism+hard green+conservationism?

Systemic short time-preference leading to disaster is definitely a thing, so, while the environmentalists' particular concerns may or may not be well-founded, the mechanism underlying them definitely merits great concern. If global warming isn't true, there will eventually be something like it that is.

Conservationism is a difficult problem. There will always be people like Kaczynski who want to go 'back to nature', and I don't see the harm in keeping around some place for them if possible -- but we've already run out of frontier and we really haven't figured out what to do about that. (There's a related problem: even if we had frontier, it wouldn't be a viable escape method, given the shift away from farming. This will be ameliorated somewhat by the rise of tech jobs that can be done from anywhere with an internet connection, but only somewhat -- and once jobs start to run out and basic income takes over, most people will be pretty much reduced to serfdom as far as exit goes.)

As for hard green: primitivism is ridiculous bullshit, and not just because it's an impossibly unstable strategy unless the entire world does it. Linkola's vision for humanity is one that reduces its entire existence to a massive act of masturbation. To hell with all that.

http://ask.fm/nydwracu

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 29, 2014, 07:49:44 AM
It's nice to make a statement as if it were axiomatic.  It's nicer to grow balls and provide evidence.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 29, 2014, 10:09:29 AM
We are living in an age where 'proof' is something that no longer applies. 'Evidence' has become a thing that impresses nobody. The age of 'it is whatever I decide it is'.

Take the title of this thread: "Deep Ecology is bullshit".
To the one that claims it, that is what it is. To the one that disagrees with that, that, too, is what it is.
Whatever it actually is, is neither here, nor there.

Interestingly, it remains what it is, regardless. The only thing missing, is an ability to perceive what it actually is.
Apparently, it no longer matters very much, what anything actually is.
What matters is being able to convince others that one knows what is.
While being able to convince others that what they think it is, isn't.

Deep Ecology is. Agree, or disagree?


Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 29, 2014, 11:11:11 AM
This is a bit of fallacious equivocation. Deep ecologist = someone who wants to revert to animal skins, mud huts and nose bones? No that's a primitivist, hence the obvious distinction in terms. Deep ecology is much closer to futurist-traditionalist-minimalism than extreme techno-social regression.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 29, 2014, 11:19:43 AM
And the OP didn't even mention Kaczynski's main point, which was that the modern technological state is so inherently destructive and unstable that as soon as it starts falling apart, the whole global system would follow; because it relies on an international factory creation of items that cannot be replicated on a local level.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 29, 2014, 05:28:35 PM
I'll address the individual comments once I have more time. Despite his intellectual poise, Nydwracu can be rather imprecise with his terminology, so I agree with a lot of complaints. For now, perhaps the most useful next step for this discussion would be a taxonomy of Greens:

Nature lovers: concerned about the well being of individual plants and animals, e.g., an African elephant.
Environmentalists: concerned about the well being of systems of plants and animals, e.g., a terrestrial ecosystem.

...and also of their political corollaries:

Primitivists: desires technological regression to restore society to an earlier state, e.g., John Zerzan.
Deep ecologist: desires technological minimalism due to being either a Nature Lover or an Environmentalist, e.g., Pentti Linkola.

My questions for the deep ecologists here:
- As long as civilization prevails, why should we give a damn about the continuation of any plant or animal species?
- To those who point to the beauty of nature in its defense, what does it really have to offer that Virtual Reality won't eventually be able to match or surpass?

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 29, 2014, 06:34:41 PM
Primitivists: desires technological regression to restore society to an earlier state, e.g., John Zerzan.
Deep ecologist: desires technological minimalism due to being either a Nature Lover or an Environmentalist, e.g., Pentti Linkola.

My questions for the deep ecologists here:
- As long as civilization prevails, why should we give a damn about the continuation of any plant or animal species?
- To those who point to the beauty of nature in its defense, what does it really have to offer that Virtual Reality won't eventually be able to match or surpass?


Virtual reality can never offer reality, since it is not real.
Real is only, and can only ever be, real, if it is real.
Hands-on, bloody-nose, or worse. That is real.
There is already more than enough simulation in what passes for life.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 30, 2014, 09:41:56 AM
Who cares? We are less than a century away from pissing away the planets petroleum reserves in quanitities that matter. We'll be scaled down in technology and population.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 30, 2014, 09:58:18 AM
Quote
My questions for the deep ecologists here:
- As long as civilization prevails, why should we give a damn about the continuation of any plant or animal species?
- To those who point to the beauty of nature in its defense, what does it really have to offer that Virtual Reality won't eventually be able to match or surpass?

To the first; your question assumes from the start that you care about preserving a specific animal species (homo sapiens). To do this, you will need some number of plant and animal species around - for consumption and to offset carbon/etc. But, this only takes us to the point that exists more or less now: factory farming and a few trees here and there, as long as they don't interfere with someone's view.

Why should one care about nature more than civilization?

I am inclined to say that if one doesn't, one doesn't, and that's it...but: it would be a distinct tragedy for all life to be reduced to a profit/loss great Coca-Cola Culture arrangement. It uplifts the...(I am trying to avoid using the word "soul" here) mind/body relationship to consider oneself as a part within nature rather than an external parasite imposed upon it. If we would realize this, we could preserve nature and a quality civilization, simultaneously.

crow answered the second part well.




Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 30, 2014, 10:29:57 AM
I'll address the individual comments once I have more time. Despite his intellectual poise, Nydwracu can be rather imprecise with his terminology, so I agree with a lot of complaints. For now, perhaps the most useful next step for this discussion would be a taxonomy of Greens:

Nature lovers: concerned about the well being of individual plants and animals, e.g., an African elephant.
Environmentalists: concerned about the well being of systems of plants and animals, e.g., a terrestrial ecosystem.

...and also of their political corollaries:

Primitivists: desires technological regression to restore society to an earlier state, e.g., John Zerzan.
Deep ecologist: desires technological minimalism due to being either a Nature Lover or an Environmentalist, e.g., Pentti Linkola.

My questions for the deep ecologists here:
- As long as civilization prevails, why should we give a damn about the continuation of any plant or animal species?
- To those who point to the beauty of nature in its defense, what does it really have to offer that Virtual Reality won't eventually be able to match or surpass?

Everything mankind (civilization) produces relies on the goods and services produced by nature. Ecology/Environmental conservation is not just an ethics question, it's economics. Man has to be careful to not only avoid overshooting the resource base, but avoid making disruptions in the cycles of nature which produce the raw materials and energy resources a civilization relies on.

This is the point that is sorely missed in all discussions on ecology and conservation. Everyone falls into a trap of moralizing the issue. All the while demonstrating a sheer blindness to the complex system that allows for man to have civilization of scale at all.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 30, 2014, 05:08:59 PM
Quote
Virtual reality can never offer reality, since it is not real.
Real is only, and can only ever be, real, if it is real.
Hands-on, bloody-nose, or worse. That is real.
There is already more than enough simulation in what passes for life.

But what if we think of virtual reality as merely a different form of information input? A virtual database can store the same information as a virtual database, albeit far more efficiently. Why can the same be true for physical reality? There is plenty of noise in our communications that virtualization could help us eliminate. Noise as defined in Shannon's information theory, that is.

Here's another question to ask: is the DMU any less of a community because of its digital substrate? Or for that matter, why does any aspect of reality have to be built of brick and mortar?

Quote
This is a bit of fallacious equivocation. Deep ecologist = someone who wants to revert to animal skins, mud huts and nose bones? No that's a primitivist, hence the obvious distinction in terms. Deep ecology is much closer to futurist-traditionalist-minimalism than extreme techno-social regression.

I tried to address this in the taxonomy. Would you agree with my definitions? And if not, what is it that deep ecology values that isn't covered by some sort of spiritual affinity for nature?

Quote
It uplifts the...(I am trying to avoid using the word "soul" here) mind/body relationship to consider oneself as a part within nature rather than an external parasite imposed upon it. If we would realize this, we could preserve nature and a quality civilization, simultaneously.

This type of thinking is why I'm convinced that deep ecology is bullshit, or at the very least, that its conclusions are generated by magical thinking. It seems to regard nature as if it is a spiritual entity, one that demands reverence, worship, and some sort of personal relationship. Mine as well call it a religion, though I suppose that some might take that as a complement.

Quote
Everything mankind (civilization) produces relies on the goods and services produced by nature. Ecology/Environmental conservation is not just an ethics question, it's economics. Man has to be careful to not only avoid overshooting the resource base, but avoid making disruptions in the cycles of nature which produce the raw materials and energy resources a civilization relies on.

Okay, but this seems to be a secondary motivation of deep ecologist. If civilizational growth is the primary motivation, then I think we need a different term to refer to this attitude towards the environment.

My proposed nomenclature: Progressive Civilizationalist

Its defining features:
- protection of the environment insofar as it is necessary for the continued development (hence Progressive) of human civilization (hence Civilizationalist)
- no ethical obligation to the preservation of individual ecosystems, plants, or animals for their own sake


Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 30, 2014, 05:25:40 PM
When you see life, you see people.
When you speak of The World, you speak of people.
When you think or reality, virtual or real, you think of the inside of your brain.
You may be in the wrong place: the site is about regaining a lost perspective, and realizing actual life.
Not a brainscape.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 30, 2014, 07:45:25 PM
My questions for the deep ecologists here:
- As long as civilization prevails, why should we give a damn about the continuation of any plant or animal species?
- To those who point to the beauty of nature in its defense, what does it really have to offer that Virtual Reality won't eventually be able to match or surpass?

'What nature has to offer' that virtual reality won't EVER be able to match or surpass is simply the property of existing-prior-to-man.

It isn't transcendence, as I see no reason why any virtual reality could not be engineered to produce experiences that equal, or exceed the challenges imposed by 'nature'
It isn't 'the world', as the world is experienced, and virtual reality can be experienced
It isn't 'inherent value' - in the strong sense - as there is no such thing (there is, however, a weaker sense of 'inherent value' - insofar as the concept 'inherent value' is understood as value stemming from something that comes before individual choice. This weaker sense of 'inherent value' is value stemming from intersubjective psychological archetypes).

Put another way, what nature has to offer is something that fits into that part of human psychology that places value in prior structures - the same 'impulse' from which religion springs*. This is the stark opposite psychological impulse from which existentialism springs - which holds that prior structures are not only non-existent, but undeserving of value (undeserving because then the agent so valuing is operating under 'bad faith', believing that his actions and value judgements are not completely and utterly free and self-chosen - so the theory goes (see Sartre, if you dare)).

What we loose by going virtual is a type of (subjective - but also intersubjective (archetype), and hence half way between subjective and objective), or source of, meaning. And because this is the same source of meaning that gives rise to religion, absolutism, and the unique emotion of reverence that is intimately tied up with this archetype, it is something that is going to be highly valued around here - whether or not you can give arguments for why the same amount of UTILITY could be gotten from the virtual.

Death and black metal are art forms, along with some others, that are reverent, in that they worship, or in other worlds in that they celebrate what is given (as opposed to what is merely chosen).

Human beings crave reverence. This explains the gia movement, hippies having bush doofs/raves, people getting 'back to nature', good metal, and you can fill in other social movements. Obviously one can raise the issue of whether or not each particular one is actually (in the sense of truthfully) celebrating 'the given' - but I think it all stems from the same psychological 'archetype'.

In short, Deep Ecology is not 'bullshit'. It has its roots in a more general human impulse (for prior structures).

------------------------------------------------

*Why then are religion and environmentalism often opposed to each other in public debate? Because for the particular religion involved, Monotheism, the environment is merely God's creation - and so not the prior structure (which is God Himself).

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 31, 2014, 06:20:39 AM
Okay, but this seems to be a secondary motivation of deep ecologist. If civilizational growth is the primary motivation, then I think we need a different term to refer to this attitude towards the environment.

My proposed nomenclature: Progressive Civilizationalist

Its defining features:
- protection of the environment insofar as it is necessary for the continued development (hence Progressive) of human civilization (hence Civilizationalist)
- no ethical obligation to the preservation of individual ecosystems, plants, or animals for their own sake

Your proposal suffers from faulty presuppositions. You can't have unlimited growth/development of a civilization on a finite planet. The expansion of a civilization with always encroach to a degree proportional to its size and scope. The more energy flowing through that civilization will increase its complexity and strengthen its affect on the earth.

No. The Progressive world view is destructive to civilization and the planet while being wholly unsustainable.

Re: Deep Ecology is bullshit
March 31, 2014, 09:58:43 AM
The whole idea of 'progressive' is without any kind of merit. It doesn't even seem to be an 'idea' at all.
The first time I encountered the term, it was used by hippies to describe a pointless kind of so-called music, that seemed horrible to me.
Nobody questioned it, back then, because nobody ever admitted to not knowing what was meant, man.
It was just what hippies liked, and so hippies liked it.