Deep Ecology / Environmentalism / Conservation

[Anonymous No.14286966]

Why doesn't this board discuss any books with themes of environmentalism? Surely you can't all be city dweller wagies, can you?

Two of my favorites are
- The One Straw Revolution
- A Sand County Almanac

I would like to read more about the topic, so let's all post some of our favorites.

[Anonymous No.14286989]

Read Impeachment of Man, watch Dominion and Earthlings, and never look back.

[Anonymous No.14287018]

>>14286966
fukuoka is honestly so underated. totally primed to become the next lit star child

[Anonymous No.14287026]

>>14286966
Nature is a bitch and literally begging to get exploited by mankind.

[Anonymous No.14287058]

save bees shoot refugees

[Anonymous No.14287078]

"the mushroom at the end of the world" by anna l. tsing is a fantastic book on this topic, using matstutake commerce to reveal all the contradictions inherent in this mode of production connecting to ecology, forest histories, cohabitation, and our relation to nature much more generally.

reminiscent of marx's method in das kapital revealing all the contradictions of our mode of production through the analysis of the smallest unit of this production: a single commodity. but focusing on matsutake commerce more specifically lets one reveal the contradictions related to ecology, nature, our relation to other species etc., which is, of course, especially pertinent today with human destruction at an all time high

[Anonymous No.14287091]

>>14286966
Because -systemic- environmentalism will only lead to oppression and a violation of human dignity, I thought TK made that clear.

If you care about the environment but human freedom and dignity come second then you can sleep soundly, as the system will inevitably take care of the environmental problem. If you care primarily about living, breathing, freedom and dignity then you know that in fighting for these ideals, you will inevitably fix the environmental problem.

[Anonymous No.14287103]

I've yet to read a book on environmentalism that wasn't a inconsistent mess.

>We shouldn't waste resources producing frivolity, frugal communal living is the future
>Also we can't execute prisoners convicted of several counts of rape and murder
>Also they can't be paid below market rates for labouring
>Also they should have access to a television and game console in their 1-person private rooms
Fucking genius.

[Anonymous No.14287114]

>>14287078
as for more generally speaking, I think spinoza and schelling's philosophies offer the most useful tools to dealing with problems relating to ecology and environmentalism. schelling can be a bit obtuse with regards to this, german idealist that he is, but he, along with spinoza of course, puts nature at the absolute forefront of his philosophy, nature as an a priori organic whole that determines everything

[Anonymous No.14287118]

>>14287103
Industrial Society and its Future
Anti-tech Revolution: Why and How

[Anonymous No.14287122]

[Anonymous No.14287223]

>>14287103
>Also they should have access to a television and game console in their 1-person private rooms
Who says such things. You clearly have read only modern western bourgeois environmentalism. The vast majority of modern environmental authors posted on this board advocate simple lifestyles without much of modern technology.

[Anonymous No.14287226]

>>14287091
You are projecting. I just wanted to discuss general books about the outdoors. Not every book about nature has to be about solving some grand problem. It can just be about appreciating it

[Anonymous No.14287247]

>>14287114
Im no Spinoza expert so correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t his idea of nature different. I thought nature in his writings, insofar as god is nature according to him, is all of existence, not just ecological existence. So wouldn’t Spinoza still have issues? Again correct me if I’m wrong I don’t know Spinoza that well

[Anonymous No.14287495]

>>14287247
yes god is all of existence, so in that sense our human destruction of nature doesn't really matter in the long term; nature will go on living as we kill ourselves and life as we know it on this planet, but new life forms will grow in the conditions we have created and gods absolute power will not be affected

but ecological existence becomes important for spinozists if we are to start thinking about living according to nature, which is the highest mode of living for spinoza. of course, living according to nature is living according to ones own nature, spinoza is famously an egotist. but he believes that humans are naturally social and only by working together can we secure existence and increase our power of acting. and we can extend this to the entirety of nature, only by considering our ecological relations with the entire of nature can we start to really think about living according to nature; of course we do not only need each other as humans to survive and increase our power of acting, but we need the entirety of nature as a whole in order to secure our existence. living in human society such that we form one massive individual is only the first step, we then need to think about ecological relations in order to form an even larger individual, thinking about our relations to the entirety of nature (heres where the buddhist doctrine of dependent origination and spinozist ecology coincide). i haven't read his works myself but arne naess, the founder of the deep ecology movement, absolutely loved spinoza and has a book on him, which I'm guessing has similar concepts

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14287531]

>>14287026
That’s like saying your stomach is a bitch and begging to be stabbed, so you start stabbing it.

[Anonymous No.14287596]

>>14287103
pentti linkola actively literally for ecofascist kill squads to forcibly cull human overpopulation

[Anonymous No.14287603]

>>14286966
dark ecology by timothy morton and confessions of a recovering environmentalist by paul kingsnorth were pretty good reads

[Anonymous No.14287608]

>>14287531
its actually not like that you stupid idiot stupid moron idiot

[Anonymous No.14287611]

>>14287531
or like being a dude and larping as a lesbian commie chick on the internet, right?

[Anonymous No.14287628]

There's too many climate change apocalyptos to have any serious conversation about effective policy.

[Anonymous No.14287738]

>>14287103
Wtf are you talking about? What does environmentalism have to do with capital punishment? Like.. whatever lol
Anyways personally I'm in favor of letting all the criminals that haven't hurt anyone go and decriminalising drugs, and ending criminal disenfranchisement. As far as violent crime goes, the worst and most evil violence should be punished with lifelong penalties but not at the expense of the welfare and dignity of the criminals, they should be given time to be with loved ones and should have some autonomy over material conditions regardless of their ability to pay for it, being able to grow food, use tools, and freely organize and access information. They should be allowed but not forced work for the Commons without monetary compensation or personal benefit whatsoever and should be able to freely make commodities that are sold by a technocratic body to budget non-profit projects democratically organized by prisoner-syndicates that are overseen by the same technocratic body which is governed by a constitutional apparatus that insures the products of prisoner labor is not appropriated by private or state entities and is put to Common good. Basically a system of microautonomous prisoner reservations that are conscripted to work for the common good at the local state and federal level. They have no power over what is given to them but have creative authority to do use what is given as they please, within the confines set by a strict legal apparatus that prevents them in benefiting themselves in anyway beyond what is permitted by their welfare wardens. If they don't freely choose to contribute, they will lose privileges, they won't be disciplined or punished for non-compliance but will be subjected to tight controls. This won't be a problem because people will naturally chose freedom, if they don't it's probably best for them to be controlled. If a prisoner commits a crime they will be given a fair trial by a real judge and a jury of their peers who may punish them as needed within fairness. Serious crimes will get serious punishments, minor infractions aren't treated as crimes but will have consequences.
With drugs decriminalized, petty crime will be punished with short term conscription to a Community service core. Plea bargains and cash bail will go bye bye, and white collar and corruption offenses will be expanded and punished more severely on par with violent crime. This will be accomplished with a anarcho-Juche praxis and enacted constitutionally.

[Anonymous No.14287745]

>>14287738
holy shit, kys.

[Anonymous No.14287760]

>>14287745
Reactionary pigdog, may you find comfort in knowing that you will at least have fun in the pokey after the revolution.

[Anonymous No.14288193]

>>14287738
Technocapital is draining Gaia's lifeblood. In order to survive we will deterritorialize the glorious idea of Juche away from the semiotic hegemony of kimjongillism with the power of Love and project it throughout the biosphere, we will marry Agape and Juche and sick the war machine on greed, waging jihad on our[self].
eviscerate the referee
TIME TO PLAY BALL!
when your left with nothing to eat...
EAT THE TABLE- BON APPETIT!

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14288499]

>>14287608
>i um a separate and indi pendant entity of deh Earf. i done need it a’all to suvive
Sure sure.

>>14287611
So threatened

[Anonymous No.14288658]

>>14288193
agreed

[Anonymous No.14288700]

>>14288499
I usually can't stand Butterfly but she's right here. Imagine the gall of depending on everything from a planet to live and thinking you're exalted above it.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14288811]

>>14288700
It stems from a Platonic/Christian mindset, just saying

[Anonymous No.14289086]

Yet another Catholic abomination.

[Anonymous No.14289526]

>>14286966
Gravity's Rainbow

[Anonymous No.14289724]

>>14287628
What a convenient way to discourage any conversations about policy

[Anonymous No.14289890]

>>14286966

Bookchin's 'Ecology of Freedom' is a must, but he is very critical of the mysticism of Deep Ecology.

[Anonymous No.14290244]

>>14288811
Judeo-Christian*

Not sure where the Platonism is coming from. Iamblichus, for one, revered nature.

[Anonymous No.14290347]

>>14290244
There is some truth to it. I'd say that Christianity more radically departs from the Greek-Hebrew synthesis, and apart from gnosticism is an obvious precursor to evolutionary and environmentalist ideas in the west.
What the Greeks contribute to life denialism is aesthetic distancing. Paul Shepard talks about it in Coming Home to the Pleistocene, which is a good book for this thread.

[Anonymous No.14290383]

>>14290244
Plenty of Christians did as well. The meme that having dominion over the land means you can exploit it is a product of modern capitalism, not of any religion. Kings have dominion over their people in a similar way, but that doesn't make it okay if they enslave their people.

[Anonymous No.14290389]

>>14287596
Source?

[Anonymous No.14291779]

>>14286989
Second these. Impeachment of Man is a great vegetarian polemic written in 1945 by a naziboo crazy cat lady. Seriously, it's good.

[Anonymous No.14291899]

>>14290389
Better learn Finnish, anon.

[Anonymous No.14292010]

>>14290389
>If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die.

[Anonymous No.14292037]

>>14286966
Ted K anti-tech revolution
**Gene Logsdon - Contrary Farmer**
Houselander - The Reed of God
Steve Solomon, John Seymour
Lara Mytting - Norwegian Wood
Adam Danforth - Butchering
Wendell Berry collected poetry
Gary Snyder - Turtle Island

[Anonymous No.14292200]

>>14286966
sure are a lot of earth warriors ITT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71swxdSzY1w

[Anonymous No.14292221]

>>14287531
>premier technologies are natural and not artificial
Nature is a starting point, buttfly

[Anonymous No.14292235]

>>14286966
there's no secular solution to the problem of climate change that isn't retarded and contradictory

[Anonymous No.14292821]

>>14287760
You homos will NEVER be able to revolt because you are constantly infighting within your groups and because you won’t have access to Truvada during an armed conflict.

[Anonymous No.14293282]

There is no meaningful causality between grossly Phenomenal "Nature" like the Earth, living "Nature" like the the Biosphere, and domestic "Nature" like what people eat. In fact, by Materialist definitions they are at odds with each other, and only correlate because of Ontological coincidence. Prove me wrong. You can't.

[Anonymous No.14293319]

>>14293282
Kinda this. I think why we don’t discuss it much is that we have to define what nature is, and in the grander sense it is everything organic and non, since there is no meaningful moral or teleological difference between the two. At that point, there is no purpose of protecting biological nature outside of sentimentality. Humanist, egoist, or universalist lines are the only logical point then to pursue, and none of them directly promote ecological preservation as an ends in itself. At best, contextual, and specific conservation methods might be put forth as a means for an ultimate individual, societal, or universal ends, but they are not ends in of themselves.

[Anonymous No.14293334]

>>14293319
>>14293282
What are you philosophy wankers on about?

[Anonymous No.14293376]

>>14293334
TLDR you cannot justify ecological conservation as an end goal, only as a means for something else.

[Anonymous No.14293402]

I declare ecological conservation as an end goal.

Any questions?

[Anonymous No.14293445]

>>14293282
man, what a dense way of saying simple shit. throw that irrelevant jargon, it will only be useful to confuse others and in the end youll pay that with your own irreversible loss of all possible ground for action. anyway, how can you say they are at odds if they are not even different phenomena but are only different aspects, randomly distinguished by us in function of our purely human and arbitrary needs and tools, of the same living world of which we are a single part. you might not be able to be proven wrong in your jargon but you cannot justify that jargon as being part of the living world itself. before you manage to impose that junk as thee frame to read experience you are off the game. in other words, you will only be able to preach among the already converted.

>>14293319
now this is a much more readable statement. it falls under the same argument tho, because, even if it is true that ecologism cannot be justified as an end in itself, it ignores the fact that the environment is not concerned with being accepted or acknowledged by humans in any of their random inventions to organize their societies. its impersonal ongoing course is following its own living principle which is not an end nor a means but which simply IS,without our being able to say anything beyond that. we can only note that fact, and anything we might do or avoid beyond that just takes place within the purely human world and its social devices, whose only goal is the preservation of the group that forged them.


'nature' is nonexistent as such, t is only the mirror of industry in its attempt to escape the fact that it is bound to remain encompassed by a wider living world that determines the possibility of its existence, even if within its own industrial domain it pretend to be itself wider than that living world.

[Anonymous No.14293476]

>>14293445
>in the end youll pay that with your own irreversible loss of all possible ground for action

Way ahead of you, inaction is my principle.

[Anonymous No.14293492]

>>14293476
there is no static principle. even inaction takes place based on the ongoing motion of life. plus, it is never that can be claimed by a single entity. it is the lot of every living being. you are ahead in a circle that has no beginning nor end, other than the arbitrary ones we imagine.

[Anonymous No.14293494]

>>14293476
there is no static principle. even inaction takes place based on the ongoing motion of life. plus, it is never something that can be claimed by a single entity. it is the lot of every living being. you are ahead in a circle that has no beginning nor end, other than the arbitrary ones we imagine.

[Anonymous No.14293540]

>>14293445
I’m the second poster you replied too. First, thanks for the good argument, and second, I felt like you also kinda got into the technical jargon that the first reply also did. I think we basically agree nevertheless that biological nature is firmly in the “is” category rather than the “ought” of moral discussion, at least from an empirical point of view. I personally am not against conservation at all, but it’s almost always framed as a “ought” when it is a category of material not a moral agent. The argument of “woe is me woe is the dastardly human race for destroying her mother” is manipulative and egoist, making it a question of self aggrandizing and “fell good” guilt rather than a practical consideration of the individual or society.

[Anonymous No.14293593]

>>14293540
>a practical consideration of the individual or society.

yeah we more or less agree in the basics. and further, i agree that those arguments full of pathos are in the end always a manipulative effort that willingly ignores itself, but isnt that just the exaggeration of the general situation in which we all find ourselves? for pretending that we can have a completely detached view that ignores all values and considers pure matter outside any bias is to ignore that all perception is only possible based on a certain position, which will always imply selecting and discarding certain elements or aspects of the world being considered,with purely practical goals as its non-conscious criteria.

i think we can only,in all honesty, acknowledge that fact and avoid the additional pathos that usually accompanies it.or at least try to reduce it.

[Anonymous No.14293624]

>>14290244
it came with agriculture

[Anonymous No.14295079]

bamp

[Anonymous No.14296410]

>>14293282
>>14293319
>hold on let's DEFINE <thing>
back to le reddit, sirs!

[Anonymous No.14296418]

good thread

[Anonymous No.14296608]

>>14293445
good post