[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KevO', '
')You really are in the virtual cabin in the lost woods aren't you?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'I')f there is anything that doomers should realize, is that it's a lot easier to destroy than it is to create. All you have to do is look at the state of the biosphere to validate that theory. And so how do doomers react to this when they build out their ideologies?

"Let's blow up a federal building! Let's destroy civilization! Let's stick Obama's head on a pike!"

To me, there's not much of a distinction between the zombie horde and a bunch of radical anarchistic militia sleeper cells.

It is TOTALLY Animal Farm. If you use the same tactic of revolution and counter-revolution you just wind up with "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." Every time. Guaranteed.

It sounds so hippie cliche, but violence is not the answer. This is why I loath Derrick Jensen, for instance, since his whole "raison d'être" is rage. It's far too easy to be angry, especially for men who just can't resist the temptation to beat their chest and demonstrate their machoism. You want to do something impressive and heroic? STFU with the manifestos and start a community garden.

[KevO]

But anyway, back to the topic.
I've only read half the book so far and I have to say it's in some ways very Buddhist such as
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '�')��I AM WHAT I AM.” Never has domination found such an innocent-sounding slogan. The maintenance of the self in a permanent state of deterioration, in a chronic state of near-collapse, is the best-kept secret of the present order of things. The weak, depressed, self-critical, virtual self is essentially that endlessly adaptable subject required by the ceaseless innovation of production, the accelerated obsolescence of technologies, the constant overturning of social norms, and generalized flexibility. It is at the same time the most voracious consumer and, paradoxically, the most productive self, the one that will most eagerly and energetically throw itself into the slightest project, only to return later to its original larval state.

“WHAT AM I,” then? Since childhood, I’ve passed through a flow of milk, smells, stories, sounds, emotions, nursery rhymes, substances, gestures, ideas, impressions, gazes, songs, and foods. What am I? Tied in every way to places, sufferings, ancestors, friends, loves, events, languages, memories, to all kinds of things that obviously are not me. Everything that attaches me to the world, all the links that constitute me, all the forces that compose me don’t form an identity, a thing displayable on cue, but a singular, shared, living existence, from which emerges – at certain times and places – that being which says “I.” Our feeling of inconsistency is simply the consequence of this foolish belief in the permanence of the self and of the little care we give to what makes us what we are.

[KevO]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', ' ')I really don't need a reason to spend even more time on the internets.

[Ludi]

I have not read the book, just some reviews, and it looks like the authors advocate breaking stuff. Personally, I do not know why breaking stuff is seen as necessary or desirable. It seems like it would be more effective to simply change one's way of life and be an example to others instead of flouncing around calling attention to oneself in a negative way and end up in prison where you do nobody any good (except the prison industry).

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KevO', '
')I've only read half the book so far and I have to say it's in some ways very Buddhist

[KevO]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KevO', '
')I've only read half the book so far and I have to say it's in some ways very Buddhist