A conversation came up last night and want your guys imput.
Are we obligated to herald the more or less inevitable societal collapse/peak-oil/industrial collapse/global warming? If it truly is inevitable (debateable by some but its pretty fucking definate. What little changes that are being made are too small and there is not enough time for it to build momentum) then wouldn't we want to happen as soon as possible on our terms? The rich (the culprits) will probably not suffer if the collapse were gradual. There money would buy them food, water, a tasteful retitrement. While the poor, the majority, the proles are fucked for decisions that they had little to with.
The real question is do you follow the law or do what is right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To follow up
ReplyDeleteBasically, we have a maxim here 'by any means necessary'. I find the militantism very refreshing after being raised on liberalism, news and climate legislation.
So do we just hang on and try to keep our heads above the water? Do we buy land in BC for a commune of sorts and try to live above and removed from it all? Or shouldn't there be some justice, some actions? We are humans too and we have just as much stake as anyone in a functional world.
I guess the point is I would like to see more movers and shakers and less followers. Every person you read about who is doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING is just as empowered as you are and those individuals have the exact same stake in the conflict that you.
the world, and America in particular, is politically dominated by generations that stand to gain nothing by investing capital in "repairing the world" that could otherwise be spent on luxury or further economic growth. The people that can affect change will be dead before catastrophe hits(presumably 40 years or more in the future); furthermore if they invested in a sustainable future they would be dead before their investments came into fruition. There is no incentive for those in power to change their ways. Hopefully as younger generations secure political power priorities will shift and meaningful change will happen.
ReplyDeleteMilitarism can provide no solace. Unless you think plunging the world into chaos and decimating its population until its demand for dwindling resources would be sustainable again is a positive solution. If every faction thought they were justified in using destructive force to achieve their goals society would surely devolve.
Here is my question for you Ben. Do you think you will have lived a "better" life if you invest financial and emotional resources in problems you have no control over?
Also, I would like to start a new thread and I cant figure out how... do I need to be invited or something like that?
ReplyDeleteForty years is extremly generous. Look up the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC), the authorities on scientific opinion - if you need proof.I have heard projections with as soon as three with the majority falling within the next ten, optimistically.
ReplyDeleteYes - exactly the average individual does not recognize the incredible incentive they have in preventing climate destruction; their own lives, the posterity of humans, the well-being of all life on earth. I don't have much faith in the our generation being the change (notice how that phrase has new meaning then then when we first heard it ... thank you Barack) because of time constraints and even more so, the general rampant apathy that found rampant in my peers, far worse then their parents ever had it.
The difference between militarism and the militancy I was thinking is total. Mititarism is Fascist Italy or Germany. Militancy is the Black Panthers and the Earth Liberation Front. Polar opposites in so many ways. That might have been a typo though ...
I am also inclined to believe that hope (thank you once again, Barack) is sort of a shitty thing to rely upon. Hope is a great thing because the odds of whatever is being hoped for are so ridiculously slim that it is a miracle when it does.
I am going to act like you meant to say militant. The destruction of heirarchy does not mean the death of humanity. If you need proof, I invite you to visit me for a weekendor really examine countless other non-heirarchal structures all over the world, all throughout history.
We can exist in a world where the average human being doesn't have to suck their bosses dick or slurp on vag for forty years to to achieve the average, or at least the average conception of what mediocrity is.
Which ties nicely into my last point. The fundamental flaw of macro economics, finally worked out what seemed fishy about that whole class to me - What is the very first premise of Macroeconomics? Scarcity exists. There is not enough stuff for everyone to get whatever they want so we have to share, have to trade.
NOT TRUE AT ALL. We have a scarcity if everyone wants to drive hummers, fly to Cancun every sspring break and live in a 6000 square feet mansion. There is not lack of food, even with overpopulation as it is. We can be happily without so many things, if only it was recognized what a human being actually needs to live well.
To answer the question - if the money is paper then it won't matter much. What I will have I will have earned (granted after the extremely privaleged and lavish present of eighteen - twenty one years free living with a college bill besides)Emotional commitment is a tougher question with the regards to the topic at hand - it implies that I am stoked to see and herald the end of society (AS WE KNOW IT). No, its sort of an incredible irony (but what is irony anyway)that you protect what is truly right an most important (the earth) at the expense of what you love the most (humanity in all of its fucked up grandeur) but were I to be wrong and society does correct itself or we do descend into a fascity world state (not as impossible as you might think, read the paper!) it will certainly not be waste living your life for something other then selling out just to live in the box of an excessive home or as a wage slave in general.
Haha, you got me, I have no idea what the fuck Im talking about... for the most part. However I do feel that there are some parts of this conversation that we should have in person as we have some pretty fundemental disagreements. Primarily I value the introspective focus that would allow me to spend my energies on material wealth, personal platonic and romantic relationships, and other facets of life that would benefit me directly. You profess to be "stoked on the possibilty to herald the end of society" viewing your personal needs in the context of humanity.
ReplyDeleteAlso,
Miltantism: Like anarchy and other forms of less rigid/lawful political structures, miltatism cant work on the scale that humanity that currently exists, 6.8 billion poeple. I challenge you to find two examples in history where militant organizations caused anything but chaos and depravity. It doesn't make sense to expect that people will change their views if you linch a black man or blow the damn dam up thats powering thousands of homes.
World state: Rock on! If I could empower this government today I would.
could you authorize me to write my own threads ben?
We shouldn't confuse militarism or being militant for standing up with conviction and advocating for what we believe in. Militarism/militantism is violent and conflict-based, and therefore dependent on what it's fighting. What is a revolution without an enemy? Instead of fighting against, we need to fight for. There is no way to free ourselves unless we refuse to define an enemy; there can be no "other."
ReplyDeleteAn interesting mention of Obama's influence on the meaning of change. I think what's happening with Obama is a new intellectual pattern is emerging, and the dynamism that we feel is a shaking off of the stale patterns of the last two or three decades. This dynamism is being felt by a lot of people, but many are still stuck in the confrontational mindset that has been perpetuated in this country for centuries. We all have the same needs, but, to use the metaphor again, we keep looking at the finger instead of the moon. In this case rhetoric and politics are the finger and our common needs are the moon. Dynamic experience is what drives any successful movement, and Obama sensed that and used it to his advantage. This dynamism is the same as the empathy NVC seeks to cultivate; progress through (in the sense of using and also of passing through) conflict.
I think we need to take a two-sided approach. We should absolutely start a commune. And we should absolutely struggle towards a societal shift. Let's be real: we need to cover our own asses first. Or maybe not first, but at least at the same time as working to help others. I think what is exciting about the militant mindset is that it's fresh and in direct contrast to what Ben said we were raised on: liberalism, news and climate legislation. What's exciting is the dynamism of freeing yourself from the stasis of the American lifestyle that we are accustomed to; Dynamic vs. static quality. We are tired of being defined by our parents, our schools, our jobs, our politics, our sex life, our homes, our televisions: time to pursue the dynamism that we crave.
Just finished watching A Fierce Light. Pretty good. Very inspirational. It addressed the link between action and spirituality, noting that there is a large group of very soulful, compassionate, spiritual people and also a group of committed activists, but that they aren't necessarily the same people. So the movie's answer to the issue at question is to be both and take both sides: educate and create a space for yourself.
ReplyDeletematt i realy like the finger and the moon metaphor
ReplyDeleteThe nun Wu Jincang asked the Sixth Patriach Huineng, "I have studied the Mahaparinirvana sutra for many years, yet there are many areas i do not quite understand. Please enlighten me."
The patriach responded, "I am illiterate. Please read out the characters to me and perhaps I will be able to explain the meaning."
Said the nun, "You cannot even recognize the characters. How are you able then to understand the meaning?"
"Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?
found this off another blog: http://www.awakeblogger.com/2008/11/the-meaning-of-the-finger-pointing-to-the-moon/
Nice! Tevon said that he had read the same metaphor in the back of a copy of the I Ching. Pirsig likes it and uses it a few times.
ReplyDeletewhats your email nathan I don't have it and it is necessary so I can send you a request to post
ReplyDelete