HHDL speaks about .....

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

i would prefer a more common sense approach.

OK well out of curiosity which would be what - live like the lakota?



Hehe.

See as everyone is pointing out, even if all this is frak and BS, at some point, some way down the line someone has to decide what kind of goddam political way of life we're going to adopt. And the reason I have sympathy with anarchism right now is that of course it does not solve all problems but at least it solves the problem of "who watches the watchers". It lets people decide for themselves what kind of micro-associations or micro-communities they are going to set up. You don't like the one you're in, move to another one.

[Heruka]

i would prefer a more common sense approach.

OK well out of curiosity which would be what - live like the lakota?

you, like me, have no trust or authority to give or delegate, since we have waved our rights by entering into contracts with a power called a government. we are not free men or women, we are in fact sharecroppers on a government plantation. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.

thomas paine states it quite well when he writes, "A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and governmet without a constitution, is a power without a right".


so you must first establish what you are, before you can proceed anywhere.

where does your power to change anything dwell?

[Heruka]

at some point, some way down the line someone has to decide what kind of goddam political way of life we're going to adopt.

try to find a pub or bar without loud music or multi TVs everywhere, have a few beers and start talking sh1t, thats where it begins.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

try to find a pub or bar without loud music or multi TVs everywhere, have a few beers and start talking sh1t, thats where it begins.

The revolution will be inebriated. Sounds good to me!!!!

[Malcolm]

at the end of the day its about who controls resources and who decides about shutting that down in the name of sustainability. Its about ideaologs cherry picking and directing the science instead of the science directing policy,

if science directed policy, then we would have continued with the transistion to alternative energy begun in seventies, reserved the Alaska and North Sea oilfields (rather than glutting the market with the cheapest oil (adjusted for inflation) in history).

im afraid at the heart of the green movement is just more power grabing in the name of telling others what is good for the earth means austerity for you.

Well, I agree with you because the present green movement in general works from the principles set out by the social ecologists i.e communalism. While I have no problem with people who want to live together in such a way, I do not. Bookchin writes:

Property, in this ethical constellation, would be shared and, in the best of circumstances, belong to the community as a whole, not to producers ("workers") or owners ("capitalists"). In an ecological society composed of a "Commune of communes," property would belong, ultimately, neither to private producers nor to a nation-state.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Ar ... cecol.html

Deep ecology in general does not support the notion that it is proper to own nature in any sense. This is one difference we have with social ecologists. But we live in a society governed under an inherited Roman Jurisprudence. Even so, though people think that there is such a thing as private property, in reality all people have a lease.

That is also true about insider crony captalism.

its classic pressure from above and pressure from below.

You and KTD often complain of regulation. Naess writes:

"Private industy is, in spite of its official "free and competitive" nature, shot through with internal regulations, mostly unknown to the general public, but no less coercive for all of that. The smaller unit industry of green societies will, because of less hierachichal power structure among other reasons, need less regulation. Much depends on the change of mentality: the less mental change in the green direction, the more regulations." (Ecology, community and lifestyle: Naess, Cambridge Univerisity Press, 1989)

What Naess is arging here is that with the fundamental shift in ethical priorities, the need to regulate of industrial harmful side effects (pollution, deforestation, etc.,) will be ameliorated through culture change, just as less and less people smoke and drink these days, just as attitudes towards race have shifted dramatically in the past 50 years (even despite some reactionary back lash) towards egalitarianism), in the same way, cultural transformation will render these discussions we are having obsolete. Just as it is more or less second nature for most people in the US these days to avoid smoking, likewise, when we wean our culture off the crystal meth of oil, someday the idea that we would need regulation to make sure that people did not pollute the water or the air, or cut down vast swaths of forest for short term profits will seem unthinkable.

The ecological society of the future will not be a choice. The ecological society that emerges after this one, however, can scarcely be imagined. But we cannot continue the way we are moving as a civilization.

N

[Virgo]

So, basically, Namdrol, people have to evolve, correct?

Kevin

[Malcolm]

you, like me, have no trust or authority to give or delegate, since we have waved our rights by entering into contracts with a power called a government. we are not free men or women, we are in fact sharecroppers on a government plantation. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.

Oh, it's worse than that:

The consumed unrenrewable materials are replaced by synthetics, the exterminated human beings are replaced by zeks, by human beings who amenable to labor-camp existence. Since even the best of zeks are not altogether amenable to the self-repression reauired by efficient labor-camps, they too are replaced by synthetics, by machines, namely, by things made of Leviathon's own substance (i.e. undead)...

But:

In ancient Anatolia people danced on the earth-covered ruins of the Hititte Leviathan and built their lodges with stones which contained the records of the vanished empire's great deeds. The cycle has come round again. Ameruca is where Anatolia was. It is a place where human beings, just to stay alive, have to jump, to dance, and by dancing revive the rhythms, recover cyclical time. An-archic and pantheistics dancers no longer sense the artifice and its linear His-story as All, but as merely one cycle, one long night, a stormy night that left Earth wounded, but as a night that ends, as nights end, when the sun rises. (Against His-story, Perlman, Detroit, 1983)

[deepbluehum]

Ha ha ha ha ha. Well what I'm not going to FN do is form an opinion, because I'm not going to FN grasp at substantial existence, let alone a future or a face. Now I'm going to FN go to the FN merit field which is the three-fold nature great completeness beyond any trace of hope or fear. If they want my body, they can FN have it. What they can't FN do is make me work. "Not moving, continuing without interruption..." That is my "strike."

[Heruka]

Oh, it's worse than that:

The consumed unrenrewable materials are replaced by synthetics, the exterminated human beings are replaced by zeks, by human beings who amenable to labor-camp existence. Since even the best of zeks are not altogether amenable to the self-repression reauired by efficient labor-camps, they too are replaced by synthetics, by machines, namely, by things made of Leviathon's own substance (i.e. undead)...

this sounds like a transhumanist's wet dream come true, after all, is it not the intent to merge man with machine? is not transhumanism the natural progression of Galton, Malthus, Darwin, Shaw and the eugenics Fabian Society?

[Heruka]

if science directed policy, then we would have continued with the transistion to alternative energy begun in seventies, reserved the Alaska and North Sea oilfields (rather than glutting the market with the cheapest oil (adjusted for inflation) in history).

The problem here is the energy principle makes "green" technologies more expensive than what we have already, for example wind mill farms produce X amount of energy, and requires more power from the electric coal or nuclear grid to transport that wind energy into the grid than without it.

the need to regulate of industrial harmful side effects (pollution, deforestation, etc.,) will be ameliorated through culture change, just as less and less people smoke and drink these days, just as attitudes towards race have shifted dramatically in the past 50 years (even despite some reactionary back lash) towards egalitarianism), in the same way, cultural transformation will render these discussions we are having obsolete. Just as it is more or less second nature for most people in the US these days to avoid smoking, likewise, when we wean our culture off the crystal meth of oil, someday the idea that we would need regulation to make sure that people did not pollute the water or the air, or cut down vast swaths of forest for short term profits will seem unthinkable.

Yes im aware of the grand daddy Edward Bernay and how social engineering Madison ave, Hollywood works, only need to observe from a distance to see this. The leipzig connection is a good read, im certain you have come across that.

The ecological society of the future will not be a choice. The ecological society that emerges after this one, however, can scarcely be imagined. But we cannot continue the way we are moving as a civilization.

N

only people with money have a choice N.

[Virgo]

Arne Naess makes want to take a backroad... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72k7xWfjTXc and a whole lot more than that.

Kevin

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

"Private industy is, in spite of its official "free and competitive" nature, shot through with internal regulations, mostly unknown to the general public, but no less coercive for all of that. The smaller unit industry of green societies will, because of less hierachichal power structure among other reasons, need less regulation. Much depends on the change of mentality: the less mental change in the green direction, the more regulations." (Ecology, community and lifestyle: Naess, Cambridge Univerisity Press, 1989)

Interesting.

[Malcolm]

Oh, it's worse than that:

The consumed unrenrewable materials are replaced by synthetics, the exterminated human beings are replaced by zeks, by human beings who amenable to labor-camp existence. Since even the best of zeks are not altogether amenable to the self-repression reauired by efficient labor-camps, they too are replaced by synthetics, by machines, namely, by things made of Leviathon's own substance (i.e. undead)...

this sounds like a transhumanist's wet dream come true, after all, is it not the intent to merge man with machine? is not transhumanism the natural progression of Galton, Malthus, Darwin, Shaw and the eugenics Fabian Society?

I guess so, but I am not a transhumanist.

[Malcolm]

if science directed policy, then we would have continued with the transistion to alternative energy begun in seventies, reserved the Alaska and North Sea oilfields (rather than glutting the market with the cheapest oil (adjusted for inflation) in history).

The problem here is the energy principle makes "green" technologies more expensive than what we have already, for example wind mill farms produce X amount of energy, and requires more power from the electric coal or nuclear grid to transport that wind energy into the grid than without it.

I am not a blind advocate of wind, or solar (Point of fact, I oppose wind development in my area since it is not appropriate here nor effective). My point is that we are thirty years behind the curve of where we should be with alternative energy R&D. What you are talking about is the fact that there is no way to store power. The grid is the storage, wind and solar are not able to maintain power to the grid consistently.

But this is simply an engineering issue.

Yes im aware of the grand daddy Edward Bernay and how social engineering Madison ave, Hollywood works, only need to observe from a distance to see this. The leipzig connection is a good read, im certain you have come across that.

Smoking is a massive (as well as expensive) public health issue. If you read Buffalo Bird Woman's Garden: Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians (Orginally published as Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians: An Indian Intrepretation, Universtity of Minnesota, 1917), you will find that Buffalo Bird Woman commented that young men in her tribe who smoked (very few of them at that) were not able to hunt as effectively and were more easily killed in raids simply because they could not run as fast since it ruined their breathing. Therefore, in her tribe, young men virtually never smoked, since it was recognized that smoking was bad for you. However, old men, over 60 were enouraged to smoke as much as they liked, since they were finished with hunting and warring.

only people with money have a choice N.

Everyone has choices.

[Malcolm]

i would prefer a more common sense approach.

OK well out of curiosity which would be what - live like the lakota?



Hehe.

See as everyone is pointing out, even if all this is frak and BS, at some point, some way down the line someone has to decide what kind of goddam political way of life we're going to adopt. And the reason I have sympathy with anarchism right now is that of course it does not solve all problems but at least it solves the problem of "who watches the watchers". It lets people decide for themselves what kind of micro-associations or micro-communities they are going to set up. You don't like the one you're in, move to another one.

Well, the problem with anarchism, like deep ecology, is that there is no clear path from here to there.

Societies generally form based on resource availability. Ancient Celts after all were not much different than North American Indians of the Eastern Forests in their mode of life. But they way they were different can be summed up in three terms: wheel, metal, cattle.

N

[Virgo]

Well, the problem with ... deep ecology, is that there is no clear path from here to there.

N

Of course there is Loppon-la: evolution. But it will take a lot of time; that is only natural. Whether we fail or not, that is only natural too.

But we can implement things to help the process. We need more loving people, who are also assertive. We need to learn how to raise our children better, and learn about human development more. Which has only really been going on in the west in modern times.

Primarily, we need to institute more holistic education systems for growing people, aiming not just at their intellectual growth, but their emotional, and spiritual growth as well. For example, science needs to grow and come to realize the importance of yoga and emphasize it more for health, and that the fact that having more positive emotions helps people learn better and be healthier. Then we need communities and schools, that teach children not just sciences, math, language and so forth, but physical well-being, and how to foster loving kindness in a non-sectarian way (not just because it makes them healthier and happier, and learn better, but because it helps people get along better and show each other more respect), and so on. All of these are important in sociologically creating cultures that can see the deeper benefits and wisdom in things like deep-ecology.

I think we need to grow a great deal. I think the first step is education, not just about principles of deep ecology, because we can understand the principles all we want, but if we are ruled by too many afflictive emotions, and are in a bad environment, it will cause people not to go in the best direction.

Likewise, we also need more education about topics specific to deep-ecology, left biocentrism, and so on.

So we need to start making changes in society, and we must do it now, in my opinion. Happier, healthier societies with a different emphasis when it comes to education seem really important to me.

Best,

Kevin

[Heruka]

Societies generally form based on resource availability.

N

water alone, is not enough.....

[Heruka]

I am not a blind advocate of wind, or solar (Point of fact, I oppose wind development in my area since it is not appropriate here nor effective). My point is that we are thirty years behind the curve of where we should be with alternative energy R&D. What you are talking about is the fact that there is no way to store power. The grid is the storage, wind and solar are not able to maintain power to the grid consistently.

austerity for you and me is in the wind, after all the future control grid needs more energy, as technology grows, it is expedient to shut off grannies heat in the winter and A.C. in the summer to help with the security matrix you are in. it takes energy to store energy, there is no getting away from the conservation of energy N.

BTW thanks for the deep green links and pointers.


as for being thirty years behind, i would say most technology is hidden from view and is probably 50 years ahead of what gets rolled out to the public.

[kirtu]

Well, the problem with anarchism, like deep ecology, is that there is no clear path from here to there.

I'm not a fan of anarchy but Ursula K. La Guin wrote a novel, The Dispossessed, exploring anarchy in the context of an advanced technological society.

Kirt