Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tim

Pages: 1 [2]
The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 27, 2019, 10:14:00 PM »
I'll add that I think your civilization is doing just fine at what needs to be done to correct itself. I'll leave it in your hands and stop posting in your thread, you seem very sure of yourself and what you're doing. Super sure.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 27, 2019, 10:11:15 PM »
Well, I pointed out some of the key usages of language that your culture is deluding itself through, and you just reject them. So, good luck.

Again, you slur those people by labeling them as 'the past.' That's just a concept you have formed in your own head. It's literally ... racism.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 27, 2019, 09:59:05 PM »
Your use of 'the past' to describe cultures that still live here on the earth right now, right under your nose, is illogical. It's not an objective observation of reality or time at all, it's a smear, a slur. One that says, the way those people live and their cultural ideas are to be ignored. Who wants to 'live in the past.' But they aren't in the past, they are there right now. The way you talk sometimes is absurd and irrational to me.

I can clearly see where you can't even identify the instances of where your language conveys influencing myths.

Here's a thought. Instead of looking at what you can 'take' from indigenous thought, what you can 'accumulate' onto your system that would help it ... why don't you consider comparing and contrasting the different cultures and consider what some of the things are that some of these indigenous examples don't do that you culture does do ... and consider removing things from your culture, instead of just looking at it as accumulating something more to it, like a bandaid over a bleeding wound?

That's how I'd suggest you approach indigenous examples and comparisons and contrasts of other non-civilized cultures. Has that ever crossed your mind? Can you only just add, and never subtract? What is it these cultures don't do that yours does? That's another way to look at it.

You can't add Luther Standing Bear's concept of how to perceive the biosphere to your culture. To are going to have to first subtract the way civilization came to view it.

Again, it's a whole direction your mind faces that isn't very obvious to you. But it is to me.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 27, 2019, 05:45:31 PM »

Let me try and take you through some of the mythological language you use when you speak. By mythological, I mean it's a story, a narrative, a meme.

I personally believe that there's no way back. I think that it's the wrong move to idealize a past culture.

The past? A past culture? No way back?

This is clearly a narrative, and one I've already pointed out in this thread ad nauseam, but I'll try one last time.

This is social Darwinism, which is not something Darwin ever espoused himself, in fact he spoke out against the idea. It's a narrative that says people such as the Amazonian tribesmen or the Kogi tribe in Columbia or the Dongria Kondh tribe in India ... are stone age relics of an evolutionary past.

It's a narrative that tells a story of how civilization is the evolutionary successor to these people's, who are all from the evolutionary past. It's a story, a myth, a narrative ... a meme.

Did civilization people grow another set of physical adaptations and present a different genetics from the people of this this supposed evolutionary past, like Darwin's theory speaks about? No, they didn't. They are the same DNA as civilized people. Both are homo sapiens sapiens. So where does this bullshit come from that they represent the past, and civilization represents the future? Those people I just mentioned are living here right now as we speak.

You're passing along a mythology here. A story told in word usage alone, not a reality. Indigenous thought is not 'the past.'

What's really hilarious here is how you then turned around after saying 'we can't go back to that' ... and quote a scientific paper that expressed an idea lifted entirely from an indigenous narrative of respecting the environment and caring about it, rather than just plundering it as an externality.

What are these transformed social values the paper was referring to, if not those of the indigenous people's who have told civilized thinkers this exact very same thing for centuries every time civilization rolled over them? This is the people out at Standing Rock calling themselves 'water protectors.' These are the people who two hundred years ago told civilization that its accumulation society and private land ownership customs would most certainly result eventually in environmental collapse.

That concept, of having respect for the environment, is one universal to all indigenous cultures civilization encounters. It was only just civilization culture that abandoned this narrative and cultural point of view thousands and thousands of years ago when the totalitarian agriculturalist culture (one culture) emerged out of the fertile crescent thousands and thousands of years ago. Now you seem to be saying you want to 'go back.' Or do you really think the idea of not plundering the environment, and instead developing some form of respect for it, is suddenly a brand new idea these scientists had, just now? No, it's an idea borrowed from what the indigenous have been saying to civilization for centuries.

So you've said both things now without even realizing it. In your own mythological language said how we can't go back to this supposed past ... and then suggested we do go back to this past. You just altered the words between the two contradictory ideas you expressed was all.

The indigenous in the Amazon are not from the past. They are there right now. What a bunch of mythological language you just used. One that paints a mosaic that says civilization is the next evolutionary step after those 'indigenous stone age people from the past.' You just, very subtly, expressed a mythology there. A story. A culture forming story.


Want to hear another story myth you just expressed?

I would say then that the way forward, rather than seeing ourselves as just another animal ...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. But you are an animal. There, didn't even need to spend too much time on that one. You are an animal. Why are you trying to distance yourself from that?

Surely you're not trying to promote this mythology that the Abrahamic religions all started that separates humans from animals and tries to paint them as being some sort of superior supernatural special creature made in the image of some god from the sky are you? Because that's what I heard in the language you just used. I heard you promoting a mythology there ... because you are an animal.


And furthermore, about Luther Standing Bear's quote. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about, is Luther Standing Bear's view of the biosphere, instead of the Christian cult's view that it's beneath them, ugly and filthy, wild and savage. That's a mythology the Christians have promoted heavily among their people for the past several thousand years, the very same people who now think they are more advanced than those 'wild savages' on an evolutionary scale because of this meme they tell themselves about themselves.

Now, to use your convoluted word symbols, you want to go backwards to an idea from some guy from the stone age.

Can't go back? Can go back? You've said both things again.

Using some of the ideas from indigenous culture would be in line with something I am suggesting as a possibility. What, did you think I meant running around in loincloths or something when you implored how we can't go back? No, I'm talking about ideas and narratives and memes, not about loincloths and living in teepees.

Your wording about 'back' with it's subtle implications of 'moving backwards' ... is a memetic mythology. A narrative. Just as much as how separating humans outside of the biosphere with the use of the word 'nature' as a separation signifier forms a very subtle narrative and lulls the mind into a very specific point of view. You've also done this now by labeling indigenous thoughts and ideas as being 'from the past.' See what you did there with your mythological meme?


Last one, even though I could keep going, is the way you used the word 'stewardship.'

I saw nothing in Luther Standing Bear's quote that implied control over the environment that the word 'stewardship' conjures. The indigenous didn't see themselves as arrogant controllers of the environment. This idea of stewardship over the environment has only come along out of Christian thinking as Christian thinkers started to become aware over the past few decades of how their original thousands of years old idea of dominion over the environment was starting to look a little ignorant and destructive and power hungry ... control over, dominion over ... conquerors of it.  It was their realization of environmental degradation that only just started to become obvious to civilized thinkers a few short decades ago, so now, the 'control' language has shifted in the churches from 'dominion over' to 'stewardship over.' It sounds better, but it still implies dominance and control.

It still spreads the same myth of superior to the environment The controller of it. Dominion over it.

It's a meme, dude. A narrative. A destructive one to the mind. Luther Standing Bear wasn't saying anything about controlling the environment through any sort of stewardship idea. The word stewardship is directly implying something smarter and more able will care for something less smarter and less able. It's just the same old freaking superiority, magical special creature, separate from nature ... nature's goddamned steward now for blinkin' sakes ... worldview of the arrogant narcissist. Luther Standing Bear wasn't talking about being any steward. He was speaking out against that meme of separation and superiority to the environment that infects the civilized mythology.


So your thread was about being lulled into mythologies by subtle word usages. I just pointed out a whole bunch of them that you use. It's a good subject, and once you see the mythology of superiority and narcissism the civilized narrative tells, you never see it the same way again afterward.


Thanks for the discussion. I'm not even going to address the comment about how it is that Jack Forbes can speak and write in English. I'll let you think that mystery over for yourself. By the way, I'd already read that research paper you posted. I was struck immediately about how long after the bell it was that this researcher was suddenly grabbing at the concept of actually caring about the biosphere, and saying how civilized culture needs to make a social transformation. Same thing them Indians from this mythological 'back then' have been telling civilization for hundreds of years now and continue to tell them today. Civilization seems a little slow on the oopidsday in that paper, not advanced at all if you ask me. I had read that paper already when it came out. What you should do is read Quinn's books, and maybe Jack Forbes books. It would save me a lot of typing. In Ishmael, he undoes and exposes several of the mythological narratives you just used. I think it would be instructive for you. And what Forbes does, is describes how these memes get transmitted, almost like mental viruses. I'm sorry if that seems like a general idea to you. I think it's actually drilling down into something quite specific myself. Incredibly specific.



The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 26, 2019, 10:34:54 PM »
And those big celebrations were probably a way of instilling and preserving the custom in the minds of the people, because the way Jack Forbes described it, it trickled down and was observed at the day to day level among people within the group, at the blanket to blanket level each and every day among individuals, not just at big celebrations.

They had lot's of fabulous ideas for how to weed out undesirable behaviors, like having different people distributing the meat from those who had done the hunting. After all, if you'd just lost a finger that day hunting, you might feel you were more deserving of a bigger portion of that meat. Having someone else distribute it was a check and balance against certain thoughts creeping in and getting the better of people. Those big potlatch celebrations were possibly a way to encourage the distribution behavior among individuals on the day to day level that Jack Forbes described.

Jack Forbes is indigenous, by the way, and as an author fought hard to give accurate accounts of his people's historical culture, unlike what we find in some of the revisionist history written through a colonial cultural lens. I feel confident trusting his accounts of the historical culture. He definitely claimed the giving away to each other was a custom on the day to day level, between individuals. It was just their worldview, their narrative.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 26, 2019, 09:35:55 PM »
Sorry for the off-topic, but do you guys know of any indigenous tribes that employed taboos to prevent the accumulation of possessions/wealth (the most altruistic tribe members would become chief, for instance)? I vaguely remember reading about it in a book by either Joseph Campbell or Claude Lévi-Strauss, but maybe I just made it up.

Well, if this helps Neven, the North American indigenous custom was the reverse of accumulation and wealth. If someone had two blankets for instance, as Jack Forbes put it in his book, it was their custom and an honor to give the second blanket away to someone who had none. It wasn't a one off or birthday custom, this was their culture, evolved over millennia, to ensure the equal distribution of needed items to one another. The opposite idea, of hording all the blankets until you had a monopoly you could use to extort people with, was just not a concept they ever came up with. It was a matter of survival of the group, on which they all depended, not a meme of individualism. They gave their extra stuff away to each other, as a cultural axiom.

Many indigenous also viewed the idea of private land ownership in the same way. The way the Hawaiians were ripped of out of their land was that US missionaries came over and instituted the legal system of private property laws. They told the Hawaiians to go into town to sign up for the land they claimed was their own. That was so foreign to them as a concept that they scoffed at the idea and never went and signed up for any land, and that's how they lost it all.

But the North American indigenous concept, as an entire cultural belief system, of giving away anything extra you had to someone who didn't have one of those items, as a deep honor ... wow, what a concept, hey? Pretty much the opposite of the civilized ideas about private accumulation of wealth and property in it's entirety. They literally knew of no other way but to share equally among the group. Pretty foreign to the civilized idea of how things ought to be now, which we can see plainly led to no good. The civilized idea is simply not what got us through 3 million years of ancestral evolution, as we can plainly see by our current crashing system. But it's a worldview, a mindset. The indigenous had the better evolutionary plan by far, in most things they did and didn't do. Civilization isn't born out of evolutionary ancestry at all, it was a break from it, and that's why it crashed now after 500 generations.

Hope this is what you were looking for. Accumulation society is a fail on all levels.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 26, 2019, 08:36:16 PM »
This is what I found so powerful about Daniel Quinn's Ishmael book. Through the Socratic conversation he constructed between the teacher and the student in the work, the teacher was able to tease out of the student some of the turns of phrase and usages of common wordings that exposed a cultural narrative, one's that the student wasn't aware where just narratives at all. The student had taken them for granted as simply being just the way people talked, even scientific smart people, and hadn't perceived them as being cultural narratives or mythologies whatsoever. Some of them even patently false or misleading or wrong. It revealed to the student in the book a culture that he hadn't even thought he was a part of, one that he had vehemently denied knowing of any 'story' his culture was telling themselves about themselves at all. At first the student had denied he was even any part of any supposed mythology story, or not one that he knew of, that they were a very objective, scientific people. The culture of civilization whispering in his ear, which was all but invisible to him, until some of the myths were pointed out to him, to which he was shocked. Watching this process unfold in the book was fascinating and very instructive about this concept.

Damn memes.  :-\

Edited to add: What Daniel Quinn pointed out, was the meme of anthropocentricism that runs through civilized culture, which is proving to be so destructive to our biosphere and leading to collapse. He wrote it before climate change was even a thing, which is a pretty instructive thought all on its own.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 26, 2019, 06:22:34 PM »
Better to compare 'man' in this current culture to the social insects where multiple examples of the types of rapacious behaviour we exhibit are to be found. Living as social beings en masse must follow certain gaming rules, that is a particular dynamic will work best, unfortunately, judging by the ethics free gaming of this by these insects it looks rather like the whole system has to be geared to serve the whims of the centre, with disposable 'workers' who do all the work supervised by a ruthless unthinking but equally disposable security 'caste'. Rather like the type of regime that is, and is routinely imposed by, the Empire, not a natural fit for humanity.

A few more thoughts on this for you johm33. What Jack Forbes explored a lot in his book on wetiko disease was a psychological phenomenon that worked much along the lines of how the 'Stockholm Syndrome' manifests in abused people. I see it when I talk on blogs with Americans, where the poorest and most trodden upon in their society are amazingly the one's who often defend the propaganda they are fed the strongest. The indigenous noticed this effect when their culture was being rolled over too, how their children often became little wetikos and started emulating the behavior of their imperial captors.

This is not accidental psychology. There is knowledge behind how this psychology is applied. The Catholic residential schools in Canada that continued to intentionally break the culture of the indigenous after they stopped outright shooting them is an example of this. Children were removed and isolated from their families, which induces trauma. Then they were forbidden to speak their language, practice their culture, and were systematically beaten and abused.

To see how this wasn't just the misbehavior of a few bad men like that Catholic church claims, we need look no further than how this shared knowledge for breaking a culture is also being employed by the Chines in Tibet right now. Residential schools, where children are removed from and isolated from their families, forbidden to speak their language and practice their culture, and are systematically beaten and abused and psychologically traumatized. Sound familiar?

The whole insect system is, among other varied ways and methods, achieved through the application of psychology. The abused, often repeats the cycle of the abuser. That's one of the indigenous observations of the wetiko system, that they saw it affecting their children in a way not dissimilar to a form of intentionally applied Stockholm syndrome, where the abused almost falls in love with their abuser and then is caught in a cycle of emulating them.

Anyway, just some more thoughts. Reversing this psychology would be no small task, if it's really even possible at all on any sort of mass scale around the globe. That's where my eyes glaze over. It's quite the conundrum civilization has got itself into here.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 26, 2019, 05:22:33 PM »

"... so I reject what I see as a simplified interpretation of the Enlightenment offered in the above link."

That link was interesting in the few points it made about various things, such as the transmission of thought memes, ideas of capitalism, etc, etc ... but other than lifting a few quotes from Jack Forbes, it really wasn't anything to do with the indigenous ideas presented by Forbes about wetiko. You can't search the internet for any ideas about indigenous thoughts on the wetiko concept and get much returned to you ... the internet is whitey's domain. I know, I've searched it too, and there isn't much there on this subject. That link you gave wasn't all that much about wetiko or what it's really about, so don't make your judgement from that. If you're interested, I suggest you get the  book by indigenous historian and author Jack Forbes called "Columbus and Other Cannibals: The Wetiko Disease of Exploitation, Imperialism, and Terrorism." That website was ... just some person's website about ... stuff. It wasn't much of a representation of what wetiko is about. I suggest Jack Forbes book. He dives into the psychology of it.



Yup. I could write all day about the psychopathy. But how does one actually go about rewiring and reversing the now completely distorted psychology of a 7 billion strong global wide phenomenon? But, yup. Pretty sickening. Pretty broken.



I think it's a lot like how you did it. Observing, thinking, a life long interest in human social psychology. I have had certain books fall into my lap along the way, but they were usually just a validation of what I was discovering on my own or a few better worded insights that I was getting from them. I'm like you, I find it's a lot less about taking in information and more about filtering certain information out. Garbage in, garbage out, after all. Some of my journey has actually been about taking certain information I picked up from the culture I'm surrounded by and removing it from my mind. What's left after you take out the garbage is much better, and was always in there to begin with it seems, but just gets suppressed by all the crap we are fed. Sort of like a universal set of concepts has been covered over.

I think you'll find few out of the 8 billion people are going to think outside like you do. You'll find it's a pretty lonely journey. I've met several people who all have this piece or that piece, and maybe one in my life who got it enough to actually practice something different about how they live their life at a fundamental level.

The reason I recommend Daniel Quinn, even though it isn't 'everything' about the various discoveries I've made, is that it's easy and quick to read, it's short, it's a pretty powerful set of thoughts all in a simple to get through book that isn't some anthropological or historical tome, and I can link people to a free copy of it because I know people will never go out and actually buy the book otherwise. When I read it a few years ago, I thought, yes ... this is good, he's found a way to say it that's fairly accessible to the civilized mind (maybe.) So that's why I recommend it. He found a good way to say a few things, so I borrow from him quite often. But no ... I didn't learn this from him. I think I uncovered it because I always was only on the periphery of civilized culture, yet in direct contact with it but not really joining in with it. And I did a lot of running around in the forest off designated trails like you. Haha!

Good luck nanning. You won't find many uncivilized thinkers out there who have taken out the trash from their minds. They are out there, but they're just rare is all. I definitely noticed it in your perspective right away on this thread when you first posted. That's why I jumped in. No, these ideas don't get much traction out in society. When the trash is gone, it's amazing how much alike we all actually think underneath all of that garbage perspective we are fed by this culture. It's profound actually, that there's something underneath all that cultural conditioning. I don't read newspapers either, lol.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 26, 2019, 12:19:59 AM »
I don't assume you're an idiot. I did see you say capitalism is contagious and effective at destroying cultures, and that's I guess where you were referring to assimilation. I saw you refer to the Cree driving pickup trucks though, and thought you were pointing to them as being 'indigenous,' and thought you might have missed that their actual culture was eliminated some time ago in the past through colonial policy. Same with India, they've been civilization for thousands of years now too, maybe even one of the earlier places to become civilized in fact, even though there are some remote tribes that are still only just now being forced off their remote lands in some of the mountainous regions and into the assimilation juggernaut.

I don't assume you're an idiot. I just thought you might have thought I was pointing at people like the Cree as being the indigenous I was referring to. I'm Canadian too by the way. I think you have to look to places like South America or Africa to see the last places where the civilization mindset is slowly ousting the last remaining neolithic people that remain. That's where I got confused I guess at your reference to the North American indigenous people who are mostly just indigenous by label these days and no longer by actual practicing culture.


I was actually trying to tease out something much deeper and more fundamental than just modern capitalism (although it is a concept based somewhat on the cultural worldview I was pointing toward.) The mental shift in worldviews happened long before modern capitalism arrived on the scene, probably 8,000 years or so ago, and then 400 or so years ago back in North America, and continuing today in South America and Africa mainly. I see capitalism as just an evolution and extension of a part of that creeping worldview.

The Cree were actually the ones who long ago labelled it 'Wetiko' ... 'the cannibal.' They realized that if you fought it, you were then wetiko too, and it had successfully spread ... to you. If you ran from it, then it got your territory and had successfully spread ... in your absence. If you hunkered down and grit your teeth and tried to persevere within it, your children just grew up assimilated into the culture, and the wetiko once again had successfully spread ... to your children who grew up assimilated now. It was the darnedest thing they saw, and they definitely saw it as a disease of the mind, a sort of narcissism that refuses to acknowledge itself or self reflect.


We do agree on some things though. That the word nature is an odd one that carries a mythology to it of 'us and it ... separate in thought.' The North American indigenous actually had no such word for it, because it would've seemed absurd to them to separate themselves from the biosphere as such in their minds, and so had no concept of such a thing. That's not because they were idiots either. It just shows their worldview didn't separate themselves apart from the biosphere in their minds like civilization culture does. That idea we can surely agree on, and is exactly what I was trying to talk about as to how words and stories have very powerful effects on how we perceive our world. That's how culture is passed down, as stories, even scientific stories. It's information that forms our worldview from the time we are young, a lot through words.


I agree, I was talking about something a little wider than just this one concept you've introduced in the thread. I also agree with something else you just said strongly too. If we think it's just 'human nature' to be this way, which you do hear said a lot on climate boards, as if civilization is inevitable ... then it can't really be changed then, can it?

If it's just a cultural worldview though, taught through stories and language, then that indeed, as you've stated, means that it can be changed, and that we don't have to be stuck with it.

That's why I hammer away at culture the way I do. It sort of is what I do as my way of trying to address ecological collapse. So thanks for letting me hammer away in your thread for a little while about it, even if it strayed a little.  ;)

I don't assume you're an idiot. I was just drilling down into what quickly become very complex and veiled ideas. Please don't be offended.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 25, 2019, 10:09:49 PM »

... but you'll find that the CO2 emissions from China and India have the same heating effect as the CO2 emissions from the U.S. or Germany.

You'll also find that the Cree hunters driving their pick-up trucks to harvest moose emit the same kind of CO2 from their trucks as the French-Canadian hunter going to harvest his.

You don't seem to realize how far back it was that civilization culture moved out of the fertile crescent and swept across and assimilated pretty much the whole globe already thousands and thousands of years ago. India and China are definitely civilization, and have been for a long, long time. You're thinking Western civilization, when I explicitly stated Eastern and Western civilization. They are indeed one and the same culture.

And the Cree you mentioned have long been forced into assimilating into the dominant culture. Those that refused to assimilate were killed.

It's difficult to have this discussion with someone so steeped in a particular worldview and who can't even identify the culture I'm pointing at. That's an aspect of the problem, people have mistaken a culture they belong to, one that began thousands and thousands of years ago, for being 'human nature' instead of just being one cultural worldview.

That makes for a pretty big set of blinders. I agree we are talking past each other here.

Those Cree have been assimilated into the dominant culture for quite awhile now, it's almost impossible not to have that happen. You assimilate, or are killed, that's the culture. The indigenous writer and historian Jack Forbes wrote extensively about this concept. Those Cree are part of civilization culture now. And so is China and India, for a lot longer than you seem to realize.

You are viewing this through a typical cultural lens is what you're doing, one that can't even see or identify the culture it belongs too.

But hey, thanks for the thread and the opportunity to put some ideas out there about it. I appreciated it.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 25, 2019, 04:49:10 PM »

Like it or not, we live in a world shaped by us the civilized worldview.

Do people not realize that indigenous cultures are still living on the earth at this very moment? Do they not realize the indigenous are also homo sapiens sapiens too, and still living here and now in some places, and aren't just some previous stage of evolution? There's your supremacist mythology creeping out for you.

The only thing different about the singular culture called civilization, Eastern and Western, that separates it from indigenous culture, is the mental thought patterns that arise from stories they tell their children about themselves, which is what forms a worldview of a common culture.

It's a fallacy to call 'us' and 'we' these other examples of non psychopathic cultures as if they simply didn't exist as examples to draw from of humans who are also living in the world. They are ignored as if they just aren't there whenever these 'human nature' arguments are formed within the dominant culture. This is yet another one of the subtle myths narcissistic civilization culture tells itself ... that they are the next evolution beyond indigenous people, that this is now, and that indigenous stuff was all just in the past and irrelevant to today.

They aren't, both are homo sapiens sapiens, the indigenous people all over the planet (where they still exist unmolested by civilization) are still living out their evolutionary stable path, here and now, and all are homo sapiens sapiens. The only difference between civilized culture and them is the thoughts they think that have formed their worldview since childhood, which are very different from the narcissistic anthropocentric-supremacist worldview that civilized culture murmurs to itself. That's what changed, that's the actual problem here.

This isn't on our species. It's on the cultural worldview of just one single group of them. While that one group ignores this reality and does all this deflecting and compartmentalizing and rationalizing away of their cultural mental issues, away from themselves like we're seeing in this thread, trying to normalize it and make excuses for it, the problem and it's solutions for it will continue to evade them entirely.

When a heroin addict enters treatment they will do exactly the same thing. Point here, point there, point to this, blame that idea over there, make excuses for their behavior by comparing themselves to a bacteria maybe even, trying to find ways to justify their irrational behavior ...  anything but accept they themselves have a problem that needs to be addressed.

Civilization culture is not all homo sapiens sapiens currently living on the planet. I wish people could drop that cultural mythology and approach this rationally. I don't think civilized thinkers can though. It's a pretty strong myth they've steeped themselves in for thousands of years.

If civilization culture refuses to address itself and its glaring anthropocentricism, solving climate climate change won't make any difference at all to the cliff it just found itself falling off of, so they probably shouldn't even bother.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 25, 2019, 02:48:47 AM »

... usually with the additional claim that there was some time "before" when we weren't unnatural, but never with a clear explanation of how the one state can arise from the other.

An attempt at an explanation was made, but maybe you chose to ignore it?

What's really been discussed here is just the different meanings we colloquially assign to the word-symbol 'natural,' of which there are probably several usages. It obviously has several different colloquial connotations in how the word gets used in language. Of course humans, even those from civilized culture, are natural ... because they are biological life and living on the planet and evolved out of evolution, no different from any other lifeforms found on the earth. We obviously aren't separate from that. In that sense, we are natural. Obviously.

But the word is also used colloquially to mean ... all the rest of the biosphere and earth system that isn't human. This is where it gets quirky, and I think you've sometimes flopped back and forth between the two usages in this thread from time to time as you made or countered various arguments.

This time that you refer back to mockingly, that you don't think was, for which you ignored the explanation that was given for how the quirk in modern humanity arose, can be explained as follows. No other living creature in the ecosystem, including every indigenous culture civilization has ever encountered, has ever consciously chosen (by conscious intent) to exterminate a competitor the way civilization culture does. This is noted by ecologists, no other creature does this. And no indigenous culture does this. Only civilized culture does this. If it's not it's own food, or the food of it's food, civilized culture is ok with exterminating it. Farmers will actively hunt down all wolves just to be rid of them. Crop sprayers will proactively exterminate insects they feel are a nuisance. The examples are many. In fact, the biosphere is mostly all extraneous to civilized culture. Indigenous cultures certainly didn't share this world view. Only civilized man holds this worldview.

This is something no other evolving life form has ever done, not even indigenous cultures. A baboon is an aggressive animal, and it will attack and kill a hyena if it encounters one. However, it does not come up with a plan to consciously and proactively seek out and kill all hyenas as a policy for ridding themselves of their competitor. Only civilized man started doing this on a mass scale and by rationalized policy. Indigenous cultures didn't do this.

It's a pretty defining break from what ecologists talk of as being the peacekeeping law, or animal ethics. It allows for diversity and without it things don't evolve, you'd just wind up with several top species in each niche, and that is not what we see when we look out into the biosphere. Only civilized man exterminates things proactively, sometimes even completely in an area he is occupying. It's a defining trait of civilized culture and considered holy work among civilization agriculturalists.

This is the defining break from the rest of the living biosphere that civilized culture undertook. That was the switch. It's quirky in the same way we would distinguish murder from a non-murder death. Using the logic you used to say what we're doing to the biosphere is 'natural' is just removing a classification in a sense, like saying, as you noted, meh ... climate always changes. Well, then murder isn't murder, it's just another death. Arson isn't arson, it's just another fire.

Just as murder is not 'just another ordinary death,' I think when we can see one culture abandoning a pattern of behavior that all other lifeforms on the planet maintain, as I described above, we could certainly call it unusual, or crazy, or departing from the natural order, much in a similar way to how we don't think murder is just another ho hum way somebody died. We do distinguish murder as being different from just plain old dying. We should consider civilized culture's departure from the order found in the rest of biosphere a similar aberration and not seek to pass it off as normal or ok. We don't do that with murder or arson, because they aren't the same thing as just dying or just a fire.

Natural, nature, unnatural ... they're really just word symbols. Should we get rid of murder as a word too, because that too is just assigning a value judgement to a death. Maybe we should do away with that sort of classification too? That seems to be what your suggesting about a common usage of the word natural or unnatural. It brings nuance to our language, like how murder further defines ways someone can die.

And I hope you give some though to what changed in civilized culture that diverges from the behavior of any other life-form on earth. It's a pretty big deal. I don't think we should seek to cover it over and ignore it with semantic arguments. I'd be fine with calling civilized culture 'unnatural' due to the reason I explained above. They departed from an ecological law that all other life follows. Or maybe we should call it stupid instead. I'd be fine with that too. Or, insane.


Just watch for those two gaming strategies I outlined. To summarize, price controls are absolutely required or corporations will just gobble up those dividend cheques for themselves. And the large emitters must not be exempted from the tax, because that's the actual source of the money Hansen was eyeballing. Without them contributing to the tax, the dividend is a ridiculous pittance and not what Hansen envisioned at all.

You need price controls to protect the dividend cheque from being stolen, and large emitters participating in the tax in order to make the dividends large enough to matter.

Watch for it, because with those tiny changes, they've totally gamed it. Coming soon to an area near you!

Except you better watch closely how this tax is actually implemented in its details. In Alberta Canada, we have a carbon tax, but it wasn't implemented in line with Hansen's vision at all, where the taxing of large emitters would create a dividend so large that those households you mention would be able to buy solar panels and electric cars with it. Instead, the largest emitters are exempt from the tax and placed under the easily gamed cap and trade system, which has made the dividend cheque we receive pitifully small because the big money source Hansen was aiming at with his idea is exempt, which effectively negates Hansen's concept.

Then, what's happened on top of all that, is that the energy companies have all still cried wolf politically, about a tax which they are actually exempt from, and raised their prices beyond even what those small dividend cheques provided to families, effectively hoovering up all those cheques from the households and placing them into their own pockets instead.

The devil is in the details. In Alberta, the tax has left households net poorer, and in even less of a position to buy alternatives.

Hansen envisioned a culture that actually wanted to solve climate change. He forgot to account for the psychopaths that run and game the system, who are finally only now going to implement the tax because all the Davos people got together and figured out how to game it. Just because they're calling it a carbon tax and dividend program, doesn't mean it's Hansen's vision. All they've done is figured out how to game it is all. Nobody in Alberta's contracting economy is able to buy a solar panel or an electric car with the $120 dollars every three months that we get, especially when our energy costs, overt and hidden, just went up by four times that amount by the companies who don't even pay the tax. It's a total fail here because it was gamed to change Hansen's vision into something he wasn't envisioning at all, which is what corporations and their governments do with ideas.

The devil is in the details.

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 20, 2019, 10:19:35 PM »
Not sure if I was who your comment was directed at or not wdmn. Just to clarify, I only just heard nanning present a few unusual concepts, and wanted to recommend a book I thought they might be interested in. It wasn't really all that related to the general discussion, or you. I just heard them say a couple of specific things and thought I might toss them a book to read, since discussion about those concepts aren't common.

Sorry if it was inappropriate to jump in and recommend a book in response to a single comment like that. Maybe I'll consider deleting my comment after I return from an errand. I wasn't actually even following the other discussions in the thread very closely. I just happened upon that one comment by chance, and got all blurty with a book recommendation.  ;)

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 20, 2019, 09:17:43 PM »
Great video Lurk, thank you. It confirms a lot of my observations and conclusions. I think I can trust the source though I am careful when some media so closely matches my understanding.

Isn't social hierarchy a bitch. It is obvious from the video to me, that people are the same independent of their wealth or gender.

nanning, you ought to read Daniel Quinn's short book called Ishmael. I think it will match with your ideas and add some more thoughts to your insights.

I have avoided this thread, because my eyes glaze over now whenever I see people confusing (as you've pointed out) what is really just the one culture of civilization, and instead use phrases that imply "all humans" ... like, the human race, human history, mankind, etc etc ... when they are really only speaking about the behaviors of the one particular culture called civilization, and then treating that as if that was all of humanity since forevers and evers.

It really is quite a myth bubble civilization has set up around itself.

Quinn took this idea quite far, and he even tied it into the use of language to support the self reinforcing myth that I just pointed out as being one of the ways that the mythology bubble is spread as reinforced, and how resistant people are to acknowledging they are even in such a culture (ie, your 'bubble' you mentioned.) He also tore apart a whole lot more pertaining to the ideas you just expressed too. He did give a date, a reason, shows a historical trajectory, and follows the emergence of this culture's anthropological footprint as it emerged and eventually engulfed the entire planet, which is where we now are today.

I'll also send you to page 122 of his second book as well for his particular walk through history showing this singular cultures track as it spread out across the world and either wiped out, or assimilated, all other cultures in it's path as it expanded due to it's quirky worldview (which it now thinks is the entire "human" worldview instead of being just a particular culture that emerged with it's own unique worldview, alongside other cultures that the one culture has now pretty much eliminated from the earth.)

I think you'll find yourself reading your own thoughts as you read his light, easy to read material presented in the format of a Socratic discussion.

Remember, go to page 122 of this one, but do read all of the above Ishmael first (150 or so pages.)

The insanity you speak of was also noticed by the Cree as well, and labeled "Wetiko" ... which basically translates into "narcissistic cannibal." You may want to research that concept too.

You're not the only one who's intuited such things, and Quinn actually traced the evolution of this culture back to it's initial emergence through being heavily well read and informed about anthropology and civilization history.

Good luck. I think you'll really relate to Quinn's ideas quite a bit, and it will add some thoughts to your bag.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: May 20, 2019, 05:52:41 AM »
I don't think most people from civilization even realize that they are just one culture.

Some peoples have understood for centuries that a society built on extraction and accumulation would burn the whole planet alive. Western science has a lot of nerve showing up just as we’re on the precipice of a biospheric death spiral to brandish some graphs and offer to block out the sun just a little.

“Indigenous knowledge systems are rigorous, they pursue excellence, they are critical and comprehensive,” Simpson says. “The global roots of the climatic crisis and the exploitation of natural resources are issues indigenous peoples have been speaking out against for hundreds of years.” The proof is in the pudding: Colonists were warned by word and weapon that a system of individual land ownership would lead to ecological apocalypse, and here we are. What more could you ask from a system of truth and analysis than to alert you to a phenomenon like climate change before it occurs, with enough time to prevent it? That is significantly more than colonial science has offered.

The devaluation of indigenous political thought has nothing to do with its predictive ability. The ruling class produced by accumulation society simply will not put its own system up for debate. (this discussion of culture is what that XR banishes from its ranks by policy, because it's a corporate movement, a march for more culture as usual) Thus the climate change policies we discuss—even and perhaps in particular the Green New Deal—take for granted not just the persistence of commodity accumulation, but its continued growth.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: May 20, 2019, 04:46:04 AM »

The decisions that have lead to climate change are rational decisions within the existing political economic cultural system.

If the extinction rebellion isn't willing to change the political economic cultural system, then it will fail to meet its goals.

Fixed your typos.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: May 18, 2019, 09:16:44 PM »
I think etienne has given a perfect example of the social engineering tactic I was trying to point out. That was actually my main point for posting. In all etienne's posts they've taken a discussion about the de-growth concept, one that tries to introduce discussions about such a thing, and etienne has reworked it into several social shaming strawmans about, no ... these people want violence. These people are violent. She's labeled it as people calling for violence, people being extremists (her elevator joke) ... and violence, violence, violence. "Them types" ... they're calling for violence.

Wow, who said that was what this was about, except you? Don't you see what you just did there?

It's just a false antisocial label you seem intent on trying to attach to anyone who wants to discuss the merits of removing the requirement for growth out of our existing social structures. It's a thinking task, not a punching activity. Nice smear job though etienne. I think you just gave a great demonstration of the social engineering I was pointing out. A perfect one. That's the way it's done, with false labeling and untrue smears.

@zizek. One thing I could add to your post about the civil rights movement was that they had some excellent thinkers who cautioned them against ever, how did someone put it here, "sitting down at the table with them." Because that's how the movement gets compromised and neutralized. The "at least they get a seat at the table with them" is a fallacious strategy and the civil rights movement was aided immensely by not falling for that. They didn't "negotiate" nicer segregated drinking fountains. They held firm and eliminated the practice of blatant segregation altogether. They were cautioned by some excellent thinkers about "getting a seat at the table with them." Just a point I thought I'd add to your discussion that relates to what I was posting about, about subverting social movements.

@Lurk. NET zero emissions is not to be confused with zero emissions. The NET in there just means offsetting all the fossil fuels you continue to burn. It's some pretty crafty double speak to make it sound like lessening fossil fuel use. It's not though, it's about burning all the fossil fuels you want and just offsetting them through various offsetting schemes and as of yet un-invented technologies of scale to suck CO2 out of the sky. Net zero emissions doesn't mean stopping fossil fuel use at all, it's a way to envision continuing it.

The problem with this, is that even if that pipe-dream worked, you'd still be left with consumer economies plundering the earth in all the other ways it does so, beyond just climate change alone. People have sort of become blinded to this unfortunate reality, that if the growth model continues, we still end up in the same place anyway, even if we stopped climate change somehow. De-growth at least tries to address that bigger picture ... it at least acknowledges all of the different ways we are collapsing the biosphere with our current social model based on ever expanding growth.


Anyway. I posted some links, I'm not going to stick around to listen to people like etienne do a bunch of strawmanning about violence, which nobody brought up but ettienne. I find that to be dishonest discussion. I posted some links, read them or don't. Make of it what you will. What's the alternative suggestion, someone asked? Obviously, de-growth ... instead of more growth, and ever faster growth, which is the thing XR socially shames people out of even bringing up for discussion. According to etienne, they're apparently now even labeling those people as violent. Sigh. Nice job etienne.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: May 17, 2019, 11:19:20 PM »
Neven, here's a blog that has written quite a few entries about Cory's work over the past month. Don't just read the first entry, read all the entries organized under this link and you'll get an overview of what's being uncovered. Some of it you can discard as 'meh,' but over all it gives an impression of what's been found out about how this ties into big money and corporate interests, people who are just figuring out a way to stimulate more consumerism culture and growth out of the climate crisis. They saw a revolution coming, a really true revolution, so they have done what they've done a hundred times before and co-opted it to steer the message of all that energy into something that calms the people and hijacks that energy.

Cory Morningstar is a longtime environmental activist who has been teargassed in her past. For years she's written about the infiltration and subversion of NGO's and the methods the establishment uses to do it. One of those is the targeting and ousting of the so called 'radical thinkers' who usually started the movements in the first place. With them gone, the establishment is left with the not very 'thinking' individuals who were just following the previous organizers. Those leftover are then easily steered off track. That's what makes the eliminating of progressive thinkers out of the climate movement such an obvious signal (people like you, those who realize the entire set of premises underlying the whole system has to change, into things like stopping the growth/consumerism mentality for example.) The fact that they are trying to achieve this across an entire public outcry about climate change is pretty telling. Bingo ... busted.

Here's that blog.

Other's are talking about this too. It's the talk of the town and probably the biggest new news in climate action yet. This is big stuff, since many, if most most, are likely to fall for it ... especially teenage girls, the biggest consumer market on the planet.

All these blogs have links to Cory's work, who has been exposing this sort of thing now for years. She was the one who exposed how the 1C warning was co-opted and changed to a 2C warning back in the late 1980's in order to delay action on the climate. That was years ago now that she exposed that. She's no subversive working to derail the climate movement, that's for sure. I heard of her years ago, and she knows her stuff.

I wish you luck in your research. Draw your own conclusions about what you read. To me, it adds up. Ya, how did they manage to drive a yacht into the middle of London and block a street with it? And there's a reason behind them wanting to declare a climate emergency, but it's not really about helping the climate much, it's about stimulating growth in a stalling growth environment through the mass diversion of funds that will come from the mass public all pulling the fire alarm for them. Pretty interesting stuff. Decide for yourself if this is how you want this all to go down.

Thanks for the great work you do here Neven. Sorry to have to break this news here, but people ought to at least know what they're supporting and make an informed choice. Not all capitalists are fossil fuel capitalists, remember. But all capitalists externalize the biosphere and even human citizens of the biosphere and just grab the money. Their system demands that of them by it's very structure, and these are the people behind this recent launch. This isn't the way forward, IMO.

This is the biggest new news in climate action going at the moment, brand new, and ought to be seriously looked into.

Thanks for listening peeps. Keep up the good fight.

And nobody said this was Gretta's idea. Saying that is silly and naive. And Cory Morningstar is hardly someone trying to subvert the climate message. That's a ridiculous assertion if you knew anything about her background and history in environmentalism and the fight against the biosphere gutting establishment. Don't be naive.

Good luck.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: May 17, 2019, 08:08:42 PM »
That Time magazine cover conveys quite interesting symbolism. Everything from the living biosphere expunged from it, not a living thing represented in it except for a human wearing a bourgeois dress that represents the champagne crowd more than it does any sort of criticism against said crowd. Roman columns representative of colonial architecture, shoes sticking out made by a multinational consumer corporation. Everything about it says BAU, nothing about it says environmentalism. Cement and a human, all thoughts of a biosphere expunged from the viewers subconscious thought. Interesting marketing psychology going on here for sure.

Neven posted an excellent video awhile back on the forum pointing out the subversive and often invisible workings behind corporate growth capitalism called "The Corporation." Lurk, who prides himself on being ahead of the curve on all things, posts often exposing the invisible mechanisms behind the Corporate growth capitalism goings on in Venezuela. These are excellent exposes of how capitalism is the real driver behind biosphere destruction, as well as being ecxellent exposes on the very subliminal methods capitalist elites have developed in order to further their ideological grip over the planet and it's biosphere, that only just continue to grind into dust.

They would be interested to learn about how, at an official XR organizers 'leaders training' seminar, they draw three bubbles on a white board and identify three groups of people. In the middle circle, which they identify as being "the bad people" and label them as the ones who need to be ridiculed and mocked out of participation in XR, lies one of it's not so overtly stated core missions ... that being to expunge and eliminate these types of thinkers (like Neven and Lurk) out of the climate movement. In that circle, they place people like Lurk and Neven, anyone who seeks to question, or even bring up criticisms, of the capitalist capture of our world, or to criticize growth capitalism or the corporations at the center of that system at all, or any of the effects this system has on the biosphere whatsoever. That is bad stuff to talk about, apparently. Trouble makers calling for true system reform are bad people, that's one of XR's core messages coming from the top down. Don't ask to change the system, at all.

People here need to catch up with Cory Morningstar's excellent non-mainstream investigative exposure over the past month about who's really behind this movement, and who stage managed Gretta's meteoric rise to international fame and corporate welcomed acclaim, and see what their goals really are, lest they be unwittingly supporting something brand new being rolled out by the capitalists as their new effort to try and capture and co-opt the climate message and turn it into a new growth vehicle for the Davos investors, which is just more of the destructive biosphere crushing capitalism bulldozer that Neven and Lurk work so hard to try and educate people here against.

This is big stuff going on here people, don't miss the boat. There's a reason why XR is not being met with tear gas and batons, and a reason why Gretta was ushered into the Davos convention instead of being tear gassed and hit with batons, and there's a reason it's all being covered by the mainstream media on an international scale, immediately, like promotion and advertising, instead of being teargassed and hit with batons, complete with Time magazine covers denuded of anything environmental in it's symbolism at all.

Get with the program ASIF and figure this out already. You're being co-opted here. Thanks Cory Morningstar for exposing this sham for what it is over the past month, which a push for a capitalist fourth industrial revolution and a reinvigoration of the deadly corporate growth markets that cause all the destruction in the first place, which will just be the final nail in the coffin for an already ravaged biosphere under this new wave of growth capitalism and economic expansion. This is their new advertising rollout you're seeing, by posing as being ... you. Very clever, and also a very old method of messaging capture being employed here too, but not very helpful for those who actually care about the earth (although they are willing to use those who care about the earth in their new advertising campaign.)

I won't post about this again, this was your heads up. Please figure it out, or risk becoming irrelevant on the climate scene. Come on Lurk, actually be ahead of the game, don't just tell us you are. Why haven't you figured this out yet. It's been a whole month.

Most writing about technology and climate change still concentrates on mitigation—i.e., reducing emissions, by means of clean energy sources, better batteries, sleek electric vehicles, and so on—or, if all else fails, heroic efforts like engineering the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back into space. These technologies are often futuristic and cool.

This is the result of a careful co-opting of the environmental message away from doing anything that will help the biosphere, and shifting it toward a social engineering message that seeks to stimulate neoliberal growth economies by turning the climate crisis into a huge money spinner.

No longer is environmentalism about pictures of trees or fuzzy owls who's habitats we'd like to salvage by slowing growth capitalism and it's ideologies. Instead, those symbols have been replaced with western industrial symbols of resource sucking windmills and solar panels that are made by razing the biosphere even further. The message has been carefully co-opted, and the narrative slowly switched. All criticisms of the growth system itself have been removed from the narrative and replaced with a corporate friendly solution that supports renewed growth in their stalling economies. They want investment vehicles, that's all it's about.

The Davos crowd calls it 'the fourth industrial revolution' ... but it isn't called that in the messaging. They even airbrush that out of their invented darlings pictures for the general public to consume. The environmental crisis brought on by the economic growth mentality is very real, but the mainstream solutions being marketed for it are a story of the careful capture and co-opting of a message to serve corporate growth markets only, not to realistically address the problem created through ... growth markets.

"The ‘one kid immediately got twenty supporters’ – from a Swedish network for sustainable business. What is going on is the launch of a global campaign to usher in a required consensus for the Paris Agreement, the New Green Deal and all climate related policies and legislation written by the power elite – for the power elite. This is necessary in order to unlock the trillions of dollars in funding by way of massive public demand."

Notice what was airbrushed out here for the public? This is the wrong kind of green. We need less growth, not more. The precious metals for this tech are harvested by razing the very forests in the Congo that Jane Goodall fought to save for her chimps. The fourth industrial revolution is about money, not environmentalism.

Pages: 1 [2]