|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:28 pm Post subject: Endgame: The Problem with Civilization |
 |
|
I know that this may be more of a thread for the book thread, but for me, I kind of want to see what kinds of discussions that we might be able to bring about.
Try Reading a free excerpt........HERE
This book, written by a self described activist philosopher Derrick Jensen describes and discusses the situation that exists presently regarding our civilization, is described as a parisitic and heirarchal one, one that the author decides will and should ultimately fail, basically by the hands of those able to understand that it must....
He begins with the discussion of his basic premises......
Some of the most powerful, for me where....
| Quote: |
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 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) require the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.
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 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 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 wellbeing, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself�drives social decisions.
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. |
One of the things that I really like about his writing, though, I may not necessarily understand, or accept his ideas, is that he always places cause and context as never being independent of one another.
He examines what seems to be a paradox between outrage against the 9-11 bombings and the comparably non-existent uproar over other technically equal death tolls....that violent actions by a apparent outsider denote more attention than a cancer patient who is dieing from work related exposure...
The author makes no qualms, he is discussing the taking down, intentionally the civilization within and upon we live...it is often very hard to read, but also very interesting, and much of what he says makes sense, though not all...
| Quote: |
I�m aiming at a far bigger and more profound target than the nearly twelve million cubic yards of cement that went into the Grand Coulee Dam. I want in this book to examine the morality and feasibility of intentionally taking down not just dams but all of civilization. I aim to examine this as unflinchingly and honestly as I can, even, or especially, at the risk of examining topics normally considered off-limits to discourse.
But here�s the problem: this slowing of the industrial economy will inconvenience many of those who benefit from it, including nearly everyone in the United States.Many of those who will be inconvenienced identify so much more with their role as participants in the industrial economy than they do with being human that they may very well consider this inconvenience to be a threat to their very lives. Those people will not allow themselves to be inconvenienced without a fight.What, then, is the right thing to do? |
Therefore, what is the right thing to do, when your comfort is threatened? What is moral and what is right?
Can we actually make this kind of choice???? Do we have the courage?
Discuss..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: Endgame: The Problem with Civilization |
|
|
| bignate wrote: |
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.. |
So true, and a lot of other interesting points. This book certainly looks like a good read.
This is similar to the idea that all human actions can be divided into "the death urge" and "the life urge". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds an interesting read with some worthwhile insights into the moral nature of our lives. Kind of like Das Kapital with Enviromentalism.
I wonder what he's proposing we do after we take apart the basis of civilisation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
Sounds an interesting read with some worthwhile insights into the moral nature of our lives. Kind of like Das Kapital with Enviromentalism.
I wonder what he's proposing we do after we take apart the basis of civilisation? |
Right, I am thinking without some sort of integral form of universial conscience, won't man slip into anarchy????
Haven't gotten that far, and I don't think the author has either, since the second book is entitled Resistence..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the central premises is, from what I read: when is it OK to use violence to counter a ruling construct with violence???? Is it OK to use violence to stop a dam being emplaced??? Or a firing range that will be used in the targeting of uranium enriched bullets, etc.... Is there a need for the common people to use force against those who are in charge and those who are specifically used to control them?
Is murder ethically justified - from a multi-faceted perspective...?
One thing that I though of was why is there a level of justification placed upon a soldier or an insurgent killing each other? Each sees his duty as being ethically and specifically moral in nature....yet neither cares that their resources and lives are being used by those higher in the : "heirarchy"........ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gdimension
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Jeju
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bignate wrote: |
...
One thing that I though of was why is there a level of justification placed upon a soldier or an insurgent killing each other? Each sees his duty as being ethically and specifically moral in nature....yet neither cares that their resources and lives are being used by those higher in the : "heirarchy"........ |
How do you know what they think or feel? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gdimension wrote: |
| bignate wrote: |
...
One thing that I though of was why is there a level of justification placed upon a soldier or an insurgent killing each other? Each sees his duty as being ethically and specifically moral in nature....yet neither cares that their resources and lives are being used by those higher in the : "heirarchy"........ |
How do you know what they think or feel? |
So true, please enlighten us... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gdimension wrote: |
How do you know what they think or feel? |
Particularly, I would like to know what a soldier would know about the ethics of killing that were specific, or innate to a soldier or an insurgent.....wether a soldier would know how ethical killing is compared to say me......
Also, is killing or defensive killing only specific to a soldier or insurgent?
Can combat exist outside specified combat zones...????
Is violence only inherent within a zone entertained with soldiers and insurgents....
.are they the only ones capable of having opinions on violence and killing?
Having not killed, can I not have an opinion?
If I have killed, can I have an opinion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
if you like those "society will be its own demise unless we X" book, I got a GREAt one for you.
Ronald Wright's "A Brief History of Progress" outlines, in very good detail how so many cultures and situations before us messed up by effing up their world around them. Then mirrors it to the present state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: Re: Endgame: The Problem with Civilization |
|
|
| bignate wrote: |
I know that this may be more of a thread for the book thread, but for me, I kind of want to see what kinds of discussions that we might be able to bring about.
Try Reading a free excerpt........HERE
This book, written by a self described activist philosopher Derrick Jensen describes and discusses the situation that exists presently regarding our civilization, is described as a parisitic and heirarchal one, one that the author decides will and should ultimately fail, basically by the hands of those able to understand that it must....
He begins with the discussion of his basic premises......
Some of the most powerful, for me where....
| Quote: |
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 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) require the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.
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 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 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 wellbeing, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself�drives social decisions.
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. |
One of the things that I really like about his writing, though, I may not necessarily understand, or accept his ideas, is that he always places cause and context as never being independent of one another.
He examines what seems to be a paradox between outrage against the 9-11 bombings and the comparably non-existent uproar over other technically equal death tolls....that violent actions by a apparent outsider denote more attention than a cancer patient who is dieing from work related exposure...
The author makes no qualms, he is discussing the taking down, intentionally the civilization within and upon we live...it is often very hard to read, but also very interesting, and much of what he says makes sense, though not all...
| Quote: |
I�m aiming at a far bigger and more profound target than the nearly twelve million cubic yards of cement that went into the Grand Coulee Dam. I want in this book to examine the morality and feasibility of intentionally taking down not just dams but all of civilization. I aim to examine this as unflinchingly and honestly as I can, even, or especially, at the risk of examining topics normally considered off-limits to discourse.
But here�s the problem: this slowing of the industrial economy will inconvenience many of those who benefit from it, including nearly everyone in the United States.Many of those who will be inconvenienced identify so much more with their role as participants in the industrial economy than they do with being human that they may very well consider this inconvenience to be a threat to their very lives. Those people will not allow themselves to be inconvenienced without a fight.What, then, is the right thing to do? |
Therefore, what is the right thing to do, when your comfort is threatened? What is moral and what is right?
Can we actually make this kind of choice???? Do we have the courage?
Discuss..... |
I know of two books that make this same essential argument: Atlas Shrugged, for meaningful production, and The Forgotten Door for living in balance with nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: Endgame: The Problem with Civilization |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
I know of two books that make this same essential argument: Atlas Shrugged, for meaningful production, and The Forgotten Door for living in balance with nature. |
Yet neither promote the use of decisive violence, nor the destruction of civilization as we know it as a means to combat expploitation of the world or the world around it...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: Endgame: The Problem with Civilization |
|
|
| bignate wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
I know of two books that make this same essential argument: Atlas Shrugged, for meaningful production, and The Forgotten Door for living in balance with nature. |
Yet neither promote the use of decisive violence, nor the destruction of civilization as we know it as a means to combat expploitation of the world or the world around it...... |
Atlas Shrugged does not advocate violence, but it absolutely does advocate the breaking down and re-creation of society.
The Forgotten Door is, indeed, pacifist, but I noted it for one reason only.
And I did say the "essential" argument: the needed re-creation of society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| One of the central premises is, from what I read: when is it OK to use violence to counter a ruling construct with violence???? Is it OK to use violence to stop a dam being emplaced??? Or a firing range that will be used in the targeting of uranium enriched bullets, etc.... Is there a need for the common people to use force against those who are in charge and those who are specifically used to control them? |
I think many people do make the case for the "underling" using violence to counter violence, they see directed against them. This is a premise of much of the "ethics" which revolutionairies and anarchists espouse. Also the underlying rationale of conservatives and especially the Bush doctrine; to use violence to prevent violence (future) against oneself.
The problem with this arguement is the problem that has plagued all civilization and especially that of our advanced technological age. The problem of "forsight". NO human knows what the future will hold and any actions of violence predicated on this knowledge is farcical. It should always be a last resort, a defense , protecting ones life -- directly . Otherwise, again, humans are playing god, saying they know what the future will hold. We do not, we only have a vague direction.
The ethics of using force should be governed by this humble notion. We are not made of godly stuff...........
But interesting ideas in the article -- much I disagree with and it is much to brooooaaaad in its arguement to satisfy intellectual rigour. But thanks for the read.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not a chronic defender of modern civilization, but I have studied some of the other civilizations of the last 5,000 years. While all of them had some attractive features and all of them had some very seriously distateful features, I'm wondering what kind of civilization Mr. Jensen is proposing to replace the present one.
Or is he of the school of "Let's just destroy this one and keep our fingers crossed that the next one is more to my liking" point of view?
I've never read the guy, never even heard of him. I don't much like consumer culture and think it can't possible continue to eat up the earth's natural resources--just why should petroleum be turned into rubber duckies for kids to play with in the bathtub?--but I think I've heard all his premises before from other people.
What does he have to offer except whining? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya ta,
I agree with your points but not your conclusion.
| Quote: |
| What does he have to offer except whining? |
What he offers is dialogue. Precisely what this board offers -- the exchange of ideas and through this, each individual becoming a little more "full" in their actions/being.
So he offers more than whining. There is nothing new under the sun, as Ecclessiastes pointed out or probably the first being to be able to speak those thoughts. Yet, we still must continue this dialogue, remind ourselves that to be human is to discuss our potential (good and bad) and hopefully direct ourselves to something better -- whatever the incline or decline of our civilization.
I take his words as part of the enlightenment. That with knowledge, the world is better off. Scoffing at it as whining is just not seeing fully enough.....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
