by jdumars » Sun 29 Jun 2008, 15:19:05
His suggestions as to what to do are contained in Endgame. It could essentially be distilled into:
We must destroy civilization as soon as possible to ensure there is something left for future generations. Every day that this continues, something new is extirpated forever from the planet with the only thing accomplished being the furthering of more destruction.
He has a very good point. Once a species is gone, it's gone. If civilization had been stopped 100 years ago, or 200, how different would our world be now? Would we thank or curse our ancestors? How many more species might still exist?
This argument that people constantly make, invalidating his views because he is still "part of civilization" is patently ridiculous. If you applied this view to all activists, there would be no activist movements. If you applied it to revolutions, they would never have happened. In order to destroy something, you have to engage it. Second, we as individuals, have access to very small amounts of leverage. The amount of water I save in a year (and it's a LOT) is used in a day by your average golf course. It's used in an hour by a power plant. I could use stone tools and live in the woods and ALL of the energy I have saved would be a minuscule drop in the bucket, even compared to one company. Derrick is using the biggest leverage point he has available to him: writing books. His argument ultimately has nothing to do with himself. It has everything to do with future generations, from which we are robbing any semblance of a natural life. No one seems to give one flying fark what kind of world their grandkids' grandkids will live in. Everyone is too busy just trying to keep up and maintain their own privileged status. And, even more damaging is the fact that this status can only exist through the exploitation and abuse of others -- plants, animals, the land. This is all done at a distance and hidden from people, which is the only way it can be allowed to continue. If people really saw it, and thought about what we're doing to future generations, they'd have to accept how unbelievably selfish and childish they are. People believe they are owed all of the trappings of civilization. People believe that all of the "good" things we have as a result of this arrangement are worth the sacrifices of others and future generations. And in a sick turn of irony, people believe works of art, music, technology and such are "gifts" to the future. Well, they are not. They are converting the living systems we and they depend on into dead things. What kind of gift and legacy is that? It's absolutely perverse and insane. But those who question this arrangement, those who dare point out what we are doing are the ones called insane.
If you frame the argument in other terms, it doesn't seem quite so illogical... think of the movie Independence Day, or any other "invasion" movie. The hero fights against the aliens because they are coming into our world and taking away the resources upon which we depend. They are "stealing" from us. How is this different than civilization? It's the invader, scouring every nook and cranny of the world for things it can consume to continue its escalation, growth and progress. Anything or anyone that stands in its way will be destroyed. Life, culture, land, all will be ruthlessly silenced for "the greater good." So just for a moment consider that Derrick and others who realize this are the heroes in the movie. They are fighting on the behalf of the animals, plants, indigenous cultures, and ultimately future generations that are currently defenseless against this maniacal juggernaut. He's asking us to consider what the greater good really is... is it what people think of as progress? Or is it the gift that we can give to future generations -- a world that is more thriving, healthy and natural than the one we live in.
Dismantle globally, renew locally!
