Have you read it?
What are your thoughts?
nothing in particular..SnozzleBerry said:What are you going to do about it?
...because you support the decimation of our planet?Parshvik Chintan said:nothing in particular..SnozzleBerry said:What are you going to do about it?
SnozzleBerry said:Really? No one?
Do we have any green anarchists on the Nexus? Any "anarcho-primitivists"? Environmental activists? Anyone?
Material resource collection and production is destroying the environment and directly contributing to the daily rape, maiming and slaughter of millions of people worldwide...
Unprecedented quantities of greenhouse gasses were dumped into the atmosphere this year...
There's more plastic in the ocean than plankton...
200 species went extinct today...
What are you going to do about it?
toppy said:Green is the vibrational frequency color of love.

SnozzleBerry said:I hear you jamie and proto...the thing is, our personal consumer choices and consumption amount to a sliver of a fraction of the consumption of the planet. The vast majority of consumption and pollution are coming from the corporations who are making ridiculously insane private profits off of pushing all of this crap on the global populace. So while I can stop buying this or that or eat "green" or not drive, that has close to no net effect on the overall state of things. I don't deny that they may be great personal decisions and would never dissuade anyone from engaging in as many "individualist" strategies as possible, but as far as changing or stopping the system of global production/consumption, it's not very effective, imo.
It seems to me that a very common "liberal" perspective on those personal strategies is to extrapolate and say, "Well, what if everyone did it," but we see that not everyone will do it and convincing enough people to matter would be far too time consuming and lengthy a process to be viable, imo. We sit here as corporations privatize profits and socialize costs, drinking polluted water, eating contaminated food and providing a customer base for these people to continue murdering us and the planet. I know people get defensive when they face the fact that their action or inaction is killing the planet and this is but one of many inconvenient truths when examining our current system (war, capitalism and globalization are some others). If we're not willing to look these problems in the face and do something about them, why the hell are we here? What could be more important? I mean, personally, I find myself thinking this is perfect for a DMT/psychedelic forum where people are always talking about the holistic nature of the universe and the interconnectedness of all things and the beauty of nature...it seems like a natural fit to me. So, I don't mind posting a potentially devisive issue in this vein, because it needs to be confronted and, as it's not an easy subject, grappled with and fought over until we actually affect some long-term, positive, systemic changes.
This is just inflammatory and wrong, imo. First off, the term ecoterrorist is ludicrous and the way terrorism laws have been applied to these groups and individuals is laughable and horrific at the same time (Judi Bari, anyone?). Secondly, spiking trees is not done to kill loggers, it's done to wreck the processing equipment. Afaik, there are only like a handful of documented instances of personal injury to a logger as a result of spiked trees and only one or two where it even approached a serious injury. Compare this to the murders, injuries and incarcerations inflicted on environmental activists and it seems like a pretty one sided equation.jamie said:Unless you suipport eco terrorism, where people put spikes in trees etc to kill loggers..I really dont know what else we can do.
I see no way short of force to stop the megalith of industrialized consumerism and the environmental havoc it wreaks. We are at or past the tipping point according to just about every scientific paper on this subject. If there is an alterantive solution that doesn't require direct action or the use of force against property (and potentially people) I'd love to hear it.
SnozzleBerry said:Jamie, I agree with just about everything you have written. That being said...
This is just inflammatory and wrong, imo. First off, the term ecoterrorist is ludicrous and the way terrorism laws have been applied to these groups and individuals is laughable and horrific at the same time (Judi Bari, anyone?). Secondly, spiking trees is not done to kill loggers, it's done to wreck the processing equipment. Afaik, there are only like a handful of documented instances of personal injury to a logger as a result of spiked trees and only one or two where it even approached a serious injury. Compare this to the murders, injuries and incarcerations inflicted on environmental activists and it seems like a pretty one sided equation.jamie said:Unless you suipport eco terrorism, where people put spikes in trees etc to kill loggers..I really dont know what else we can do.
Is MEND an ecoterrorist organization? Should they have voted with their consumer choices? How do you vote with your consumer choices when you don't consume? How do you change things with your consumer choices at all given that the entire system runs on unsustainable energy and pollutes horrifically while doing so?
Personally I don't think it's radical or extreme or "terrorism" to spike trees or blockade mountain passes or deconstruct heavy machinery used for mountaintop removal or logging or other seriously harmful actions...in fact, I think what's radical, extreme and terrorizing is allowing what these industrial actions have done to the planet and us. I see no way short of force to stop the megalith of industrialized consumerism and the environmental havoc it wreaks. We are at or past the tipping point according to just about every scientific paper on this subject. If there is an alterantive solution that doesn't require direct action or the use of force against property (and potentially people) I'd love to hear it. I just haven't heard of or seen anything that strikes me (or has proved "objectively" ) to be effective.