It could be that the author/environmental activist, Derrick Jensen, is new to you or maybe you're familiar with his work. Either way, I'd like to share some links to his material.
He impresses me with his straight-forward, logical approach and softly-spoken words. And so, here are a few ways you can get your dose of Derrick...
Read his book, Endgame or his other books. Here's his website: http://www.derrickjensen.org/
Watch the video, Endgame (below) or the Derrick Jensen vids on Youtube
But first, here's a brief summary of his book...
Premises
- Premise One: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.[4]
- Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.
- Premise Three: Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.
- Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.
- Premise Five: The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.
- Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.
- Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.
- Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.
-
- Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.
- Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.
- Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.
- Premise Eleven: From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.
- Premise Twelve: There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.
- Premise Thirteen: Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.
- Premise Fourteen: From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.
- Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism.
- Premise Sixteen: The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.
- Premise Seventeen: It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.
- Premise Eighteen: Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.
- Premise Nineteen: The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.
- Premise Twenty: Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.
-
- Modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the monetary fortunes of the decision-makers and those they serve.
-
- Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the power of the decision-makers and those they serve.
-
- Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.
-
- Re-modification of Premise Twenty: If you dig to the heart of it—if there were any heart left—you would find that social decisions are determined primarily on the basis of how well these decisions serve the ends of controlling or destroying wild nature.
Key arguments
Because civilization is not sustainable (premise one) and because civilization will not undergo a voluntary transformation (premise six), activists should change the ways they think about and work toward social change.
Because every living thing is inextricably dependent upon the rest of the natural world for survival, sustaining the natural world is good.
Because civilization depends on widespread violence (premise three), all civilized people (even dogmatic pacifists) are complicit in violence simply by their own participation in the industrial economy.
Because civilization is not sustainable (premise one) and sustaining the natural world is good, an act is good insofar as it decreases the ability of civilization to do violence.
Because the global economy is killing the planet before our eyes (premise one) and because it is not redeemable (premise six), it is wrong to think that personal lifestyle changes we make within the current system can save the planet. While we are not responsible for existing in the current system because we did not create it, we are responsible for doing our part to destroy the system, as this is the only way to stop the destruction of the planet.
Other arguments of Volume 2
The civilized, like all abusers, rarely stop their destructive behavior, so they will not change because we talk to them. They will only change when they have no other choice.
Kerry and I were host for Derrick Jensen some years ago when he was here in Spokane doing a talk. Such refreshing radical thinking from a very soft spoken man. Hope to engage him again sometime...
I could not agree with him more on virtually all his premises - it also made me think again of the Georgia Guidestones - maybe they're not as nefarious as I once thought, given the reality of what Derrick is getting at - civilization is by nature unsustainable.
We have collectively and individually dreamed much here at the G-Spot (and other communities) about a golden age of sorts. I have to wonder how much of it is simply romantic notions in the context of emotional/psychological escapism (The tendency to escape from daily reality or routine by indulging in daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment).
Civilization is sustained with the help of "bread and circuses", and the energy is used to support a grand illusion of a select few. Peaceful non-compliance comes to mind...
I so want to quit my job right now, LOL
I like Derrick Jensen, although he doesn't seem to address the possibility of a technologically rich sustainable human presence here on Earth, but rather sees a return to an indigenous way of life. Here's a line from Wikipedia on him: "Jensen's work is sometimes characterized as anarcho-primitivist,[5][6] although he has categorically rejected that label, describing primitivist as a "racist way to describe indigenous peoples". He prefers to be called "indigenist" or an "ally to the indigenous..."
Given the fact (I'm comfortable saying) of technologically very advanced, spiritually developed ET's, a positive technologically advanced culture must be possible. Question: Is some kind of "civilization" necessary to create and support that kind of technology? I suspect yes. But it would need to be one based on and "fueled" by compassion, wisdom, true clarity, and deep intelligence.
I'm in complete agreement with Jensen's take on the nature and consequences of civilization as we know it, but then he rejects "civilization" as if it were something that could only ever be what it has been. Is he caught by taking words as denoting fixed reality? Nothing is fixed. All is possible. ....And yet, it's true: this version of civiliztion has to come down. But he obviously believes that a lot more is needed than non-cooperation. He is a radical activist.
Just want to point out, for what it's worth, that his name appears somewhere in or at the beginning or end of "The Fuck-It Point" video that you just posted, Noa. He may have been involved in the making of it. He certainly has the same point of view.
I've thrown out the BOX, so this is from Spirit not mind, as best one can be guided.
For me I have long held the belief that change comes from within, that is within us all. Being led by one hero or another into conflict for resolution and change will never work, as Noa pointed out this fight back will just replace one set of rulers for another. We will only ever make this transition from within, any pictures we create of what might be are just that pictures. The true reality of what is to be dwells deeply within us all, a deep felt knowing of Life the Universe and Everything, it is in all of us. It is our job is to awaken to this knowledge, so powerful, so all knowing, so complete we can’t possibly try to comprehend from our current position. I will never personally give up this fight, despite the lurking BLACK DOG in my life. When I am me and you are me we shall be as one, I will never put my beliefs in front of yours, I will just be as I am and allow you to be as you. Yet, once we all come to that place that is ME and not US there we shall find glory, joy and happiness
This song came up right when I posted my last comment, we should take more notice of those that started this rEvolution................
I like that his ideas are environmentally based, blowing the dams, tearing up parking lots to grow food, etc.. and, i am beginning to agree with him that alot of people are going to die once we reach a point of collapse. The cities are obvious weak points, as they have ti import all their resources, yet, statistically, as in all recessions, people are flocking to the cities now.
I still have trouble with the idea that we have to live primitively to be in harmony. Life wasn't "in harmony" then, there were just a smaller number of people squabbling for power over others, and within their own groups, a more raw version of what we have today. now, the "few" create the squabbles for us, to divert us from the real issues. ,,,So, while I agree that we should take back all the water rights, by force, if necessary, from corporations llike coca cola, I will never agree that we need to go back to primitive living, only a simpler way. It seems that, the eartquakes, and other natural disasters in the last several years have sobered alot of people. It's like a drug addict going through withdrawals, or an alcoholic drying out,,,it will be tough when the things that keep people "entertained" disappear, but , it will bring people to their senses eventually. So will a revolution, as all will suffer hardships in that event...
I heard today that the real id's are back in business in America, with the car licenses. And they are going to let illegal immigrants get them too ! Like they are doing them a favor,,,they just want to know where they are..
Bob, i also agree that he doesn't allow for the possibility of an advanced, yet harmonius society,,,He is really an eleventh hour kind of guy, which doesn't have time for us to "evolve". So he is leaving some other possibilities out of the equation. It's just his take on it, based on the way the stress of this civilization has affected him. at times , I feel just like him..
eyejay and Chris, I would put the peaceful non compliance together with the "change from within", because the changes within lead to non compliance,... once contemplated ! I think the change within leads to that decision,,,and would add that , peaceful non compliance could become organized, when there are enough of us, and take that land back from coca cola, and open those dams,,
The same way that Derrick says that pacifism has it's place, I think his angle does also,,,he is the guy who is dying for the beautiful new world to come into being, but feels we can't wait any longer,,,and will bring many people to their feet....He convinced me on the environmental issues,,,just don't blow the 3 rivers dam in China yet, I am working in the flood plain downstream ! ha!
I concede that Derrick Jensen doesn't take into consideration a few key things, like the availability of free energy once the controllers no longer have the power to suppress it. (Please visit http://www.deepgreenresistance.org/dew/ to see what is addressed.)
But if, as Derrick Jensen says 90% of large fish have disappeared from the oceans and 200 species go extinct every day, where do you draw the line? Where is your level of acceptance... 95% extinction, 100%? Where do you define the eleventh hour? Aren't we all living on the same planet?
I don't think this problem is going to fly away on a magic carpet and although I think that peaceful noncompliance is a good idea, it only got the OWS so far. I think all the issues they marched against still exist. I think it's time to consider all options as the time for waiting and hoping for a miracle is gone.
Blowing up dams and infrastructure isn't my idea of a bright future, but I haven't seen anything that more directly addresses the root of the problem. Few people want to give up their creature comforts and they'll defend the status quo beyond logical reason to maintain it. Sometimes, you have to take the candy away from the baby for its own good.
The point is, the collapse of our way of life is inevitable. (Do the math.) But if we help along its demise, we might be able to lessen the collateral damage. As painful as it may be to give the bandage a quick pull, it hurts worse to draw out the pain with a prolonged rip. The longer we wait, the worse it will be; the higher the hill, the deeper the fall. I doubt the world economy can survive a QE5, and Gaia can't take much more of our raping and pillaging.
Right, Bob. It was the Fuck-it Point film that first brought Derrick to my attention. (I think they just used clips of his speech; the F-iP film isn't nearly as articulate as Derrick is.) Like you said, he IS a radical activist, but we are afterall in the eleventh hour of planetary destruction. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If you want the stomach-turning proof, read the wealth of information at http://www.deepgreenresistance.org/ This planet is in a load of shit and sinking fast! If Jensen's method isn't the solution, what is?? How much time do we have to wait?
Derrick Jensen does address technology. He says it's not sustainable, neither is the traditional definition of civilization. Obviously, we can't sustain infinite growth on a finite planet, but few people are thinking about that fact. And the ones operating the System only want to rearrange the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks. So that leaves the rest of us to save the ship.
But you don't have to be a militant radical to help stop the destruction -- even within the Deep Green Resistance movement. (Details are on the website.) The point is to take action now or at least support the people that are taking action.
If your read the Collapse Scenarios depicted on the Decisive Ecology Warfare page it's very sobering. I think it's a realistic view that, after the collapse of life as we know it, the Elite will still be able to maintain a comfortable lifestyle while the rest of us poor slobs are clawing for grubs in the dirt and/or are toiling as their slaves.
I've been hoping that the impending financial collapse would effectively reset the clock to ground zero and create a more equatible, green and peaceful planet. But now I see that I've been deluding myself. It's more likely that the greedy few will do what they've always done -- grab for control, power, and resources and live off the backs of everyone they can dominate.
I feel like I've been living with false hope, that some miraculous paradigm shift/hundredth monkey awakening is going to happen and people are going to suddenly take responsibility for what's happening on this planet. But if you take a good, hard look at the people around you, you'll see that they're content to watch TV, throw trash wherever it lands, and buy consumer goods for as long as their credit holds out. Just try and bring up this subject in conversation and see how receptive people are to changing the status quo. Waiting and hoping is wishful thinking. It's time to stop dreaming and take our power back.
After reading some of the material on their website, it looks to me like DGR has an intelligent, strategic plan for real change. Radical? Yes. Necessary? Yeah, I think so.
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." ~ Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
I once thought that living sustainably, cultivating permaculture gardens, and leading by example was the way to save the planet. But history proves otherwise.
The more I research the DGR group, the more I like them. They are headed by intelligent people who have done their homework by studying history -- what works and what doesn't. The tactics they suggest have been used successfully by the military for thousands of years. Furthermore, the DGR combative frontline makes up only 2% of their plan. The remaining 98% is comprised of supporting roles that, among other things, develop methods to help people survive post-collapse. If you have ideas for the future of civilization, sustainable technology, etc. DGR needs you.
So before you close your mind completely, may I suggest you take a look at this informative video?
Strategy to Save the Planet Part 1 of 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s7xwjC1BXM
Noa,
Don't be so fast to judge the closed-ness of someone's mind. None of us knows squat about the inner life of someone else -- especially cyber-acquaintances. What we don't know we tend to fill in with our own "material." I will assert that what we think we know about one another here is 95% our own creation.
I watched all 7 parts of Lierre Keith's presentation that you linked just above. I will tell you that I'm not opposed to strong measures if they're necessary. Keith points out that during the labor strikes in France a few years ago, violence was not necessary because they had enough people to make a peaceful campaign effective. In other places, like Nigeria, violent measures were successful and perhaps were needed. I wonder how Gandhi would have dealt with that one?
Given my age and experience, I'm no longer prone to just jump onto any wagon wholesale without serious examination. So far, my questions/reservations about the Deep Green resistance approach are these:
To her (their) credit, Keith makes it clear that most of the people resisting would be doing so in non-violent ways and "above ground", and that in fact this is a vital part of the reisistance. So they're not crying for everyone to man the barricades, as it were. There are people who will do that, but most need to act and support in other ways. Okay, that sounds realistic and well thought-out.
So, I have these questions and concrerns that I feel are valid. But I would probably support actions that are responsibly conceived, which means well thought-out for effectiveness and for avoiding collateral damage.
Lastly, while the 2 presenters in the video are not 17-year-olds (whose brains, Keith points out, are not mature enough to consider consequences properly or avoid automatic resistance to any authority), they, the presenters, are obviously not mature people -- I judge just either side of 30. I make no judgment there, either, only an observation for what it may be worth.
Thank you for articulating your thoughts so well, Bob. You obviously have researched this group and have given them a fair assessment. (My comment about close-mindedness comes from reading some of the G-spot feedback which appear to be based more on pre-conceived notions than on studying the material presented.) I appreciate your diligence, Bob.
And I agree with you about the loss of life. Blowing up dams feels extreme to me and it's irresponsible to consider the people living in its wake as collateral damage. I think the thought is that many more people are going to die when the collapse happens on its own. (For example, the impending economic collapse is an inevitable scenario that will likely lead to loss of life due to mass starvation, rioting, police and/or military violence, pandemics, etc.) I think DGR believes that their way will minimize loss of life.
Maybe, maybe not. It all depends upon how its done.
DGR is an intriguing group. But of course, it pays to do thorough research before aligning yourself with anyone - especially when so much is at stake.
Thanks to everyone who searches for truth with an open mind.
BTW, Derrick Jensen was born born December 19, 1960. That makes him 52. Lierre Keith was born in 1964. That puts her at 48.
with the all the blowing up dam talk i keep thinking about something i recently learned about dams......building them causes earth quakes, google it......it was known as far back as 1870 but proven with.....i think it was the hoover dam.....the big earthquake in china a few years back was not only close to their giant new dam but also built next to a fault line........80,000 people died!.....but yeah.......i wonder what happens in reverse, taken further, in australia over decades our dams go from full to empty.....does that create constant instability and if you did empty hoover or a dam known to have generated an earthquake, would it generate another in its rebalancing....?........maybe with dams there is no going back, also they are good for cheap clean energy.....i know the dams thing was almost an analogy but we need to get smarter and it will happen, is happening.....yes sometimes in order to create something you have to let go of something else, but you dont have to destroy it to let go of it.....