NASA study predicts collapse of global civilization ?

[Ufostrahlen]

Frankly there just isn't enough petroleum to keep up with this demand long term, alternative technologies are slow in the coming and unlikely to fit in as a quick and easy replacement to maintain the status quo.

Petroleum sucks, fusion all the way:

In 2013, The Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works announced the development of a high beta fusion reactor they expect to yield a functioning 100 megawatt prototype by 2017 and to be ready for regular operation by 2022.

I also like the idea of parabolic reflectors. Or hydropower. I guess it depends on your surroundings and your budget.

The United States alone throws away hundreds of billions of lbs of food every year.

That's a crime.

What needs to change is our whole food production model.

Indeed.

This quick and easy, microwavable, pre-packaged, dollar menu, drive thru, convenience culture just can't last; it's going to have to change.

It needs to get even more comfortable, cheaper, tastier, healthier and the waste needs to be fully recycled. IMO.

The question is will we take the responsibility to make the transition easy or will we be caught off guard because we refused to accept the fact that we've locked ourselves into a completely unsustainable paradigm?

The choice is an individual one and the answer is as simple as planting some seeds.

Or stop eating meat. Most industrial meat is produced by feeding GMO soy from Brazil on former rainforest land. By adopting a vegetarian diet, one reduces his or her CO2 footprint significantly. My free Porsche kilometers should hit the 100,000km mark soon.

Only in German:

https://www.vebu.de/attachments/Berechnungsgrundlage_Veganer_duerften_Porsche_fahren.pdf

Omnivore CO2 output: 566kg
Vegan CO2 output: 75kg

May hunger be eradicated for everybody.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

The question is will we take the responsibility to make the transition easy or will we be caught off guard because we refused to accept the fact that we've locked ourselves into a completely unsustainable paradigm?

The choice is an individual one and the answer is as simple as planting some seeds.

Or stop eating meat. Most industrial meat is produced by feeding GMO soy from Brazil on former rainforest land. By adopting a vegetarian diet, one reduces his or her CO2 footprint significantly.

Personal/lifestyle/consumer choices may make you feel better, but they don't actually affect measurable change. You can't buy your way out of the problems of industrial capitalism.

And before you say, "But if everyone..."

Everyone's not...and everyone's not going to...and there's not enough time...

It's a false counter that doesn't engage with the grim reality we face, imo.

 

[endlessness]

Personal/lifestyle/consumer choices may make you feel better, but they don't actually affect measurable change. You can't buy your way out of the problems of industrial capitalism.

And before you say, "But if everyone..."

Everyone's not...and everyone's not going to...and there's not enough time...

It's a false counter that doesn't engage with the grim reality we face, imo.

I disagree. Every action counts. What is `measurable change` anyways, sounds like you arbitrarily defined that.

If the whole world litters and throws garbage on the floor, but one person doesn`t, is their action worthless? What if there is one animal that did not choke on plastic, or one plant that didn`t die because of the pollution, how much is that worth ? What if it was your own loved pet that didn`t die due to that action, is that worth it now? What if it was a loved one that now suddenly didnt get sick from eating such contaminated plant, is that one life `measurable´, is that impact significant?

It is exactly because of people making individual consumer choices that many changes occur. The fact that local food cooperatives exist is only possible because people decided to buy there instead of from big companies.... How much is it worth the change in the life of the people who work in the cooperative ? If one single family is now surviving growing organic vegetables instead of being exploited in a factory, is that not considered measurable?

I also think you really underestimate the power that an exemplary action can have in educational terms, to the future generations. And isn´t it exactly through these individual actions that we manifest the state of consciousness we are in ?

This obviously does not mean that we should not pressure and work for changes in other realms appart from individual daily choices.. Of course people should keep thinking and working on other structural changes, finding new ways of organizing society, but none of those would work either if there wasn`t a change in consciousness to begin with. If we for the moment imagine such a world where people would develop their conscience/consciousness, and where this process isn`t equal for all and some take longer, we could imagine that some people might manifest early behaviors that are beneficial in their essence and representative of a `sustainable attitude` but have a seemingly non significant impact due to the fact that they reside within a still unsustainable overall structure. But the idea is not to say, before the whole world has reached a joint developed state, those actions are insignificant and deny their value, but rather to potentiate them and take the spirit of that kind of attitude, and apply it to individual actions as well as to the endeavors to eventually change the macro structure too.

And I mean, when you say there is not enough time, for what? If you think about it, one day the sun will grow and burn the earth anyways, or an asteroid or volcanic eruption could have much more impact than all the unsustainable capitalism ever did, does that mean that whatever happened before was not significant? The power of a `good` action is not in an end state or eventual consequence that may or may not arise from it, but in the value of the action itself.

Also, instead of just saying `no`, maybe you should offer an alternative then?

 

[Ufostrahlen]

Personal/lifestyle/consumer choices may make you feel better, but they don't actually affect measurable change. You can't buy your way out of the problems of industrial capitalism.

Let's face it: industrial capitalism makes aluminium mining, oil drilling and Boeing possible. Therefore people can fly from the US to conferences taking place in Ibiza. But I don't see this as a problem.

The conference is probably a good one and engineers around the world figure out how to make planes more fuel efficient or how to produce oil in bioreactors with GMOs. The change has already begun. And if people work collectively on overriding current models, the future will be bright.

Just a few ideas I had in the shower today:

Robots will mine the ore, do the farming or work in the construction/production industry.

Domesticated perennial plants grow happily in warehouses, where they can give their fruit in exchange for caretaking.

People can live in sustainable polymer/mineral housings or caves where they either gather things from nature or work on improving machine/plant code in exchange for decentralized non-fiat futurecoins.

Fusionpowered robocop will enforce divine and natural law, so when criminals cut down trees or hurt/kill animals, they will be apprehended and sent to a reprogramming facility.

Deforestation for soy based fodder, wasting grain on meat or hurting animals in general will be stopped. All the essential proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins and acids will be derived from fungi, fruits or biochemistry labs.

etc. pp.

In the end true anarchy can take place (if Gaia choose to resign)

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Personal/lifestyle/consumer choices may make you feel better, but they don't actually affect measurable change. You can't buy your way out of the problems of industrial capitalism.

Let's face it: industrial capitalism makes aluminium mining, oil drilling and Boeing possible. Therefore people can fly from the US to conferences taking place in Ibiza. But I don't see this as a problem.

I do.

These processes are done against the will of people who live with their detrimental effects and privilege very few people. It's literally unjustified action. The fact that a few privileged folks can attend a conference in Ibiza as a result of these destructive processes is not justification, imo.

I disagree. Every action counts. What is `measurable change` anyways, sounds like you arbitrarily defined that.

I think you misunderstand me.

My point is not that individual action is meaningless, full stop. My point is that a paradigm shift cannot be the result of individual consumer choices.

So, if "measurable change" is defined as a shift to non-extractive/non-exploitive subsistence lifestyles (or some other similarly drastic change away from extractive-based industrial societies and the systems of capital they utilize to maintain control), there is nothing you can buy, no personal lifestyle change you can make that will bring about that change.

The "if only everyone did this, that would (or would not) happen," is a false argument, as I've already said. Everyone doesn't litter, everyone doesn't eat vegetarian. Everyone doesn't ever function as a unified whole when it comes to particular lifestyle choices, so it doesn't make sense to cast a question (or an answer) in that manner, because it is inherently disconnected from reality.

For example...If everyone switched to high efficiency lightbulbs, we would use less power. On the surface, this may sound meaningful...until you examine the processes it takes to produce the lightbulbs, and to ship them around the world, and the fact that individual consumers (even when presented as a homogenized bloc) present a miniscule amount of global consumption. Most of it comes from militaries and corporations, which literally subjugate their individual employees/members and essentially remove lifestyle choices from many significant areas of their lives. Lifestyle choices, even if we talk about the fallacious notions of the entire private consumer populace acting in unison, simply do not present a large enough market share to lead to paradigm shifts through purchasing power.

If one family switches to organic subsistence farming and is able to avoid working in some destructive factory, that's great. However, unless the forces of industrialism and capitalism are stopped, its irrelevant for two reasons, 1) Capitalism seeks to fold all of existence back into itself, so even though they have temporarily unplugged, as long as systems of capital still exist, the family is still in a precarious position and 2) Industrial civilization does not delimit itself to toxifying only that which adheres to it, so who knows how long growing their own food will be viable, given the perpetual despoliation of land, water, and air.

We cannot escape from systems of industrial capitalism without also dismantling them. Anything less is like burying a timebomb under your house and telling yourself you are safe because it's now out of sight, imo. We won't be safe until these systems no longer have the power to do us harm.

EDIT: As far as not having time... You talk about teaching by example and "cultivating consciousness." That's admirable and worthwhile, but we do not have time to hope that we can merely educate people and hope they will make "good" decisions. According to the science at hand, we are already over the precipice of catastrophic climatographic change. Teaching by example and cultivating consciousness are certainly worthwhile, but not if we phrase them as, "we must focus on these aspects before acting." They should be a component that accompanies actions to dismantle these destructive systems. And yea, ultimately we're doomed by the sun regardless, but I think we both see some intrinsic value in the present, eh?

I hope that helps clarify what I was trying to say.

As far as offering ideas, I've done it in numerous other places (and I feel like you know that) so I'll just lay out some simple thoughts here.

There has to be simultaneous attempts to dismantle these structures as people make various lifestyle choices. What does that mean? What does that look like?

If you start a co-op or off-the-grid homestead, invite others to your property and engage in skill shares, so that others can see practical situations where people have done so and can start thinking about these things for themselves. Teach the skills necessary for "unplugging" but stay "plugged-in" to communities that have not been/are not able to unplug, so as to maximize the impact of those skills and the number of people who might learn them.

Perhaps consider running that off-the-grid homestead as a place where folks can come spend time contributing to it. As I've repeatedly said, systems of industrial capitalism are not just going to whither away. It will take people working to dismantle them to remove them from our lives. The people who actively work to dismantle these systems will get traumatized, will burn out, and will need opportunities to "get away from it all." What better way to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges between such interlinked, yet physically distant, arenas than to create a symbiosis between the physical and mental components of each?


I'm happy to kick around more ideas, but I'd like to hear where you're at with this. Every action is an individual action...or at least is made up of individual actions. How could it be any different when we are talking about seemingly individualized beings? But, there is a qualitative difference between individual consumer choices and individual actions in a broader sense, and another qualitative difference between actions that take place within the channels of capitalism and those that actively challenge it. For an imaginatively beautiful and starkly depressing picture of what I mean (and the issues I raised earlier with regards to the ongoing threats of capitalism/industrial civ) watch The Garden.

 

[Ufostrahlen]

These processes are done against the will of people who live with their detrimental effects and privilege very few people. It's literally unjustified action. The fact that a few privileged folks can attend a conference in Ibiza as a result of these destructive processes is not justification, imo.

I actually don't understand your logic:

To build and operate a Boeing, you need:

Capital, engineers, miners, accountants etc. Oil has to be drilled and refined to kerosene. Ore has to be mined and refined to aluminium. Huge areas have to be converted into airports. Satellites need to be developed and shot into space for navigation.

These efforts are necessary for a Boeing to fly from Atlanta to Ibiza (I assume there is a flight route).

Furthermore, let's assume I want to fly this summer from Atlanta to Ibiza to attend a conference and I don't want to support "unjustified action", "destructive processes against the will of people who live with their detrimental effects" or "industrial capitalism". What present methods would you propose for that undertaking?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

These processes are done against the will of people who live with their detrimental effects and privilege very few people. It's literally unjustified action. The fact that a few privileged folks can attend a conference in Ibiza as a result of these destructive processes is not justification, imo.

I actually don't understand your logic:

To build and operate a Boeing, you need:

Capital, engineers, miners, accountants etc. Oil has to be drilled and refined to kerosene. Ore has to be mined and refined to aluminium. Huge areas have to be converted into airports. Satellites need to be developed and shot into space for navigation.

Mining is destructive, refining is destructive, industrial resource extraction is destructive. Industrial construction is destructive, utilization of the technology to run the components you cite is destructive. Period.

People don't choose to have mining rigs and refineries in their backyards. These endeavors are forced on populations, usually at gunpoint/through outright violence or with the implicit threat of violence/terror. Industrial technology is inherently violent and coercive.

These efforts are necessary for a Boeing to fly from Atlanta to Ibiza (I assume there is a flight route).

Furthermore, let's assume I want to fly this summer from Atlanta to Ibiza to attend a conference and I don't want to support "unjustified action", "destructive processes against the will of people who live with their detrimental effects" or "industrial capitalism". What present methods would you propose for that undertaking?

You can't.

Global transport is not "necessary" in an objective sense, although it is destructive and relies on destructive and coercive industries.

The fact that a non-destructive, comparable alternative doesn't currently exist doesn't somehow justify the destruction/coercion/violence of the current components of this paradigm.

Sorry for the self quote, but,

...[T]he question of, “What is that energy being used for?” must be asked...Consumerism is not Necessity; consumer choices are not Freedom; industrial technologies are not Progress. They are simply the means to the ends for a small group of corporate shareholders to generate wealth and perpetuate a system in which they exercise disproportionate control.

 

[endlessness]

My point is not that individual action is meaningless, full stop. My point is that a paradigm shift cannot be the result of individual consumer choices.

You are looking at consumer choices as the end, while I am looking it as one more manifestation of an inner state of consciousness.

So, if "measurable change" is defined as a shift to non-extractive/non-exploitive subsistence lifestyles (or some other similarly drastic change away from extractive-based industrial societies and the systems of capital they utilize to maintain control), there is nothing you can buy, no personal lifestyle change you can make that will bring about that change.

Lets imagine there`s a large object on top of a wall that needs to be moved. Now lets say a person pushes that object, and it doesnt move. Now lets say a second person comes and pushes that object, and now the object falls down. At one point did that `shift` happen? The moment the object touched the ground? The moment it passed the 45 degree angle when being pushed and gravity did it´ s job? The moment the second person started pushing? The moment the first person started pushing? The moment the first person first thought of pushing it?

What if you got another object on top of another wall.. now this time only one person pushed it, and it never fell.. was that action any less meaningful than what the other two people did, just because the object didn`t fall, even though the action was the same
So, if "measurable change" is defined as a shift to non-extractive/non-exploitive subsistence lifestyles (or some other similarly drastic change away from extractive-based industrial societies and the systems of capital they utilize to maintain control), there is nothing you can buy, no personal lifestyle change you can make that will bring about that change.

The "if only everyone did this, that would (or would not) happen," is a false argument, as I've already said. Everyone doesn't litter, everyone doesn't eat vegetarian. Everyone doesn't ever function as a unified whole when it comes to particular lifestyle choices, so it doesn't make sense to cast a question (or an answer) in that manner, because it is inherently disconnected from reality.

Just because other people do or dont do the same has no bearance on the power of the action itself. Each action echoes till infinity. Litering is a bad thing whether you are the only one doing or wheter everyone does it, it shows a lack of conscience, and that is what is significant.

For example...If everyone switched to high efficiency lightbulbs, we would use less power. On the surface, this may sound meaningful...until you examine the processes it takes to produce the lightbulbs, and to ship them around the world, and the fact that individual consumers (even when presented as a homogenized bloc) present a miniscule amount of global consumption. Most of it comes from militaries and corporations, which literally subjugate their individual employees/members and essentially remove lifestyle choices from many significant areas of their lives. Lifestyle choices, even if we talk about the fallacious notions of the entire private consumer populace acting in unison, simply do not present a large enough market share to lead to paradigm shifts through purchasing power.

Arent you contradicting yourself? If most of the resources are spent by corporations and industries, why do industries exist? To cater for the lives (and consumer choices) of people.. If corporations spend a lot, then people who buy from those corporations have a proportionate responsibility for the actions (and impact) of those corporations they buy from.

If one family switches to organic subsistence farming and is able to avoid working in some destructive factory, that's great. However, unless the forces of industrialism and capitalism are stopped, its irrelevant for two reasons, 1) Capitalism seeks to fold all of existence back into itself, so even though they have temporarily unplugged, as long as systems of capital still exist, the family is still in a precarious position and 2) Industrial civilization does not delimit itself to toxifying only that which adheres to it, so who knows how long growing their own food will be viable, given the perpetual despoliation of land, water, and air.

What is the value of 1 life? If 1 life is changed, how is that irrelevant?

Again, seems like you are looking for one utopic endpoint, and only that endpoint will justify any action. It´s a false division: either the whole world is sustainable, or nothing is valid. As mentioned, human race WILL dissapear one day, whether capitalism is there or not.. Does that mean that nothing mattered because human beings didn`t sustain themselves till the end of time?

We cannot escape from systems of industrial capitalism without also dismantling them. Anything less is like burying a timebomb under your house and telling yourself you are safe because it's now out of sight, imo. We won't be safe until these systems no longer have the power to do us harm.

Capitalism is IMO just an expression of something deeper inside of us, it `s not capitalism that must be fought, it`s the underlying state of consciousness it represents which must be overcome. We could imagine a thousand different other social structures that wouldn`t be called capitalism and still would be unsustainable, destructive or whatever. Focusing on this name is misleading where efforts should be made imo.

EDIT: As far as not having time... You talk about teaching by example and "cultivating consciousness." That's admirable and worthwhile, but we do not have time to hope that we can merely educate people and hope they will make "good" decisions. According to the science at hand, we are already over the precipice of catastrophic climatographic change. Teaching by example and cultivating consciousness are certainly worthwhile, but not if we phrase them as, "we must focus on these aspects before acting." They should be a component that accompanies actions to dismantle these destructive systems. And yea, ultimately we're doomed by the sun regardless, but I think we both see some intrinsic value in the present, eh?

Everything living will die, the whole universe has been `over the precipice of catastrophic changes` since day 1. That is still irrelevant in the sense of the significance of each daily action.

As far as offering ideas, I've done it in numerous other places (and I feel like you know that) so I'll just lay out some simple thoughts here.

There has to be simultaneous attempts to dismantle these structures as people make various lifestyle choices. What does that mean? What does that look like?

If you start a co-op or off-the-grid homestead, invite others to your property and engage in skill shares, so that others can see practical situations where people have done so and can start thinking about these things for themselves. Teach the skills necessary for "unplugging" but stay "plugged-in" to communities that have not been/are not able to unplug, so as to maximize the impact of those skills and the number of people who might learn them.

Perhaps consider running that off-the-grid homestead as a place where folks can come spend time contributing to it. As I've repeatedly said, systems of industrial capitalism are not just going to whither away. It will take people working to dismantle them to remove them from our lives. The people who actively work to dismantle these systems will get traumatized, will burn out, and will need opportunities to "get away from it all." What better way to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges between such interlinked, yet physically distant, arenas than to create a symbiosis between the physical and mental components of each?

I don´t see how any of this is different than what is being suggested. People are takling about avoiding eating meat and buying local, and you say that it would have no impact, and now you`re saying people should work on `off the grid homestead` and call others to come (call how, blowing into horns, or using the available `unsustainable` communciation network we have ?) , and yet the capitalism you mention will still be there as this happens?

I dont think anybody here said that simply buying from a different company or people is all there is to making the world a better place, but it most certainly is one of the significant ways in which the change begins to manifest itself in this context we live in (just like working on homesteads would not by itself change anything but might be a representative of this new consciousness)

 

[proto-pax]

What is the point of voting with your dollar when the overwhelming majority of wealth of the globe is concentrated in a small amount of hands?

What of those who have no dollars to vote with?

 

[endlessness]

That again points to an artificial and fallacious opposition: Either everybody does something, or it doesnt matter.

The point is not voting with your dollar as if that`s the only thing that you can do. The point is neither to NOT vote with your dollar because others cant (same as you shouldnt stop protesting in english just because some others dont speak english). The point is voting with everything you have, whether its your dollar, your voice, your example, your actions in daily life, your choice of relationships, your thoughts, your artistic creations, etc..

 

[proto-pax]

It's not fallacious when the system is run by the dollar. Any plan within the system that seeks to develop an alternate method of living/acting/thinking can be easily squelched by those with money.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

For example...If everyone switched to high efficiency lightbulbs, we would use less power. On the surface, this may sound meaningful...until you examine the processes it takes to produce the lightbulbs, and to ship them around the world, and the fact that individual consumers (even when presented as a homogenized bloc) present a miniscule amount of global consumption. Most of it comes from militaries and corporations, which literally subjugate their individual employees/members and essentially remove lifestyle choices from many significant areas of their lives. Lifestyle choices, even if we talk about the fallacious notions of the entire private consumer populace acting in unison, simply do not present a large enough market share to lead to paradigm shifts through purchasing power.

Arent you contradicting yourself? If most of the resources are spent by corporations and industries, why do industries exist? To cater for the lives (and consumer choices) of people.. If corporations spend a lot, then people who buy from those corporations have a proportionate responsibility for the actions (and impact) of those corporations they buy from.

Hardly.

Corporations don't exist to cater to the consumer choices of people. They exist to maximize profits for shareholders. Many of them do this by spending ridiculous amounts of money on advertising, to tell us we are flawed, we are ugly, we are inadequate. Corporations wage war on us, daily, so that they can profit off of us.

And that doesn't even engage with the mega corporations that essentially deal with states and other corporations almost exclusively. When is the last time you had an opportunity to divest from Haliburton...and even if you did, how would it have any effect?


I think the problem I'm having with this discussion as it stands is that we are focused on fundamentally different things, as evidenced by this statement:

Just because other people do or dont do the same has no bearance on the power of the action itself. Each action echoes till infinity. Litering is a bad thing whether you are the only one doing or wheter everyone does it, it shows a lack of conscience, and that is what is significant.

I'm not talking about individual actions in that sense. As I said earlier, personal/lifestyle choices may make you feel good, and that's great. Personally, I'm not (for the purposes of this discussion) very interested in the philosophical merits of one person's good deed and its ripples through spacetime...nor in differentiating between one person pushing on a rock and another. Although the rock example is of more interest, if we consider political events that spark and those that don't...how many people self-immolated before Mohamed Bouazizi?

Yet, they don't get "credit" for sparking the Arab Spring. Measurable? Immeasurable? Significant? Insignificant? We can play around with the philosophical definitions eternally...and come to the conclusion that "everything is as it is" and yet, this offers us no utility when it comes to strategies for action, and therefore, is not interesting to me when it comes to discussing such strategies.

I don't think that focusing on capitalism is incorrect. This is the current dominant manifestation of coercive, exploitative, authoritarian elements of the human condition. We can also discuss the elements that make it up as such...perhaps even in deeper and more philosophical senses. But naming the systems that are actively harming us is important, to me. This doesn't have to be an "either/or"...in fact it should be both as we will need to discuss those deeper aspects that make capitalism (and a host of other systems) destructive and constraining if we want to create societies that maximize our freedom, autonomy, and capacity to live.

Going vegetarian doesn't have an effect on this system, imo. Teaching people to live off of the land and doing so from a living arrangement that facilitates recovery for folks actively involved in dismantling these destructive systems is qualitatively different, imo. There is no confrontation in merely switching your dietary choices, it does nothing to combat these oppressive systems beyond affecting the individual (which is not nothing, per se, but does not present a challenge to the overarching structures). If it makes you feel better, I'm all for that, but it's misleading to label it as a meaningful action on a societal level, imo. Talking about how one individual can reduce their carbon footprint by X amount through going vegan is a red-herring in a world where militaries overshadow individual carbon footprints to a jaw-dropping degree. This is why I chimed in on that particular comment earlier.

 

[endlessness]

I see where you`re getting it at, and I agree the simple idea of being vegetarian isnt a solution by itself, but I noticed ufostrahlen had mentioned `industrial meat` in his post, so I thought that nuance was important. Industrial meat is certainly responsible for a lot of damage in general environmental terms, much more so than a vegetarian diet (not just in terms of CO2). If one would hunt their meat, have their own chickens, local meat etc, this would certainly be significantly better, and maybe even better than a vegetarian that ate only mass produced vegetarian food from far away. But still, in general it`s certainly a `trend`, if we could plot in a graph the impact vs diet, eating less meat, more vegetables, and more local food, will def show a lower impact. This is not a moral judgement on the ethics of eating meat.

The idea is to look local food, avoiding unnecessary costs, eating meat more sparingly if so (or going for lower impact meat such as insects), these are all still representative of this general attitude I was talking about.

You mention that `the current enemy is capitalism so we must fight that`, and I think we could equate this with all these wars around the world that happen when the `opposition` is made of diverse groups that just agree with fighting one enemy, but once they win, nothing is really solved and the same dominating patterns rise back again.

What is exactly this system you are trying to fight? Where is it located? The system is not the dollar, the system is not made of things.... Isn´t it a pattern that is manifested in people`s consciousness and interactions?

So if a person would change individually their pattern towards this `sustainable/aware` way, even though they are still immersed in a context where others are in the old pattern, how would it look like? How would this individual person act, in terms of what they eat, do, buy, talk, think, act, relate ? That´s the only thing that concerns me, to find that pattern. And like the resonant frequency balls-on-a-string experiment, two balls tied to a string of same lenght will vibrate in resonance even if just one of them is pushed.

You say that the philosophical part has no direct consequence and you can`t `work with it`. But it most definitely does... I mean, if you`re saying that changing these injustices is the aim, then you are considering that as your criteria for what is desirable or not, significant or not. This will shape the very design of what our tangible plan and direction. So it´s natural we should question what is `significant` and what isn´t. Also, of course we should work for a joint organized effort to change things, end injustices, but unless one realizes the pattern that it represents and how it shapes every single manifestation in ourselves (and how it would appear in such a social structural level) we will just sweep the problem from under one carpet to another.

 

[Cosmic Spore]

"The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies" - Chris Hedges

[YOUTUBE]

 

[Chadaev]

The four-cornered debate between SnozzleBerry and endlessness over individual change vs structural change and consciousness vs material interests is of a type that has been going on 'endlessly', at least since the 18th century critique of the religious path. The debate is enduring enough that I feel it must respond to strengths and weaknesses on either side (for eg, imo, SnozzleBerry is right to insist that people not kid themselves about changing this death-bound system through individual actions, while endlessness has historical precedent on their side when they point out that capitalism incarnates a certain kind of consciousness which may just as well incarnate itself in post-capitalist forms).

I've been preoccupied for a while with the idea that perhaps aya, dmt and the rest of the teacher plants could play some role in breaking these kinds of logjams. Not by getting rid of the features of the world which give rise to these arguments (social structures do not exhaust human reality, but then neither do individual consciousnesses, so each is a semi-autonomous sphere in which liberation should be pursued), but by generating a kind of third terrain.

Anyway, I'm kinda surprised that a discussion of the pickle we're all in can get this far without anyone speculating on how the teacher plants might help.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Anyway, I'm kinda surprised that a discussion of the pickle we're all in can get this far without anyone speculating on how the teacher plants might help.

This is actually the subject of a talk I will be giving at Boom this year. I'm currently in the process of getting my ideas articulated on paper, but this discussion and the Amber Lyon ones have been assisting me in fleshing them out and I will share some of the ideas in this thread, once I have them in a form where I feel good about sharing them.

 

[Chadaev]

Anyway, I'm kinda surprised that a discussion of the pickle we're all in can get this far without anyone speculating on how the teacher plants might help.

This is actually the subject of a talk I will be giving at Boom this year. I'm currently in the process of getting my ideas articulated on paper, but this discussion and the Amber Lyon ones have been assisting me in fleshing them out and I will share some of the ideas in this thread, once I have them in a form where I feel good about sharing them.

Snap!

That's great I'm giving a presentation which might be in the same ballpark in Peru next month: http://vineofthesoul.org/index.php/component/k2/item/181-sebastian-job-phd.

Tryptamines in the Anthropocene: Plant Teachers as Allies during Civilisational Collapse

One of the persistent ideas to come out of western entheogenic circles is that La Madre Ayahuasca has shown up in the nick of time. Just as the trashing of the biosphere approaches a critical point, she is reaching out from the Amazon to embrace the world, showing the way to profoundly reconnect with nature so that we might act before it is too late. This idea of ‘before it is too late’ has always been ambiguous. The sober truth is that it is already way too late for industrial civilisation. Even though the future is inherently unpredictable, all the signs point one way: there is no ‘sustainable future’ for this civilisation. However, this does not mean it is ‘too late’ for humanity as such. And it may be that ayahuasca and the other plant teachers are showing up again in time to help at least some of us go through the collective dying process more consciously, the better that it also be a conscious birthing process. In this presentation, which draws on entheogenic research in Australia, Argentina, Mexico and Peru, I consider how nature, death, grief, rebirth and the planet are being experienced and thought about by users of the teacher plants. I indicate where I think some of the traps lie for orienting to the future, and what the promise of the plant medicines might be. And I consider some new and creative practices emerging to foster a healthy encounter between the plants and the western psyche.

Be good to make time to thrash some more of these issues out...

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I see where you`re getting it at, and I agree the simple idea of being vegetarian isnt a solution by itself, but I noticed ufostrahlen had mentioned `industrial meat` in his post, so I thought that nuance was important. Industrial meat is certainly responsible for a lot of damage in general environmental terms, much more so than a vegetarian diet (not just in terms of CO2). If one would hunt their meat, have their own chickens, local meat etc, this would certainly be significantly better, and maybe even better than a vegetarian that ate only mass produced vegetarian food from far away. But still, in general it`s certainly a `trend`, if we could plot in a graph the impact vs diet, eating less meat, more vegetables, and more local food, will def show a lower impact. This is not a moral judgement on the ethics of eating meat.

The idea is to look local food, avoiding unnecessary costs, eating meat more sparingly if so (or going for lower impact meat such as insects), these are all still representative of this general attitude I was talking about.

Imo, it's the "local" point that is valid and I agree with you 100% on this. The thing is, industrial agriculture is majorly destructive (and also unsustainable). The effects of monocultures on once biodiverse ecosystems is catastrophic. There is an animal cost to eating vegeterian/vegan (assuming one is not eating entirely local), however it is usually ignored or externalized. Similarly, there are socioeconomic effects, depending on the crop in question (see: quinoa).

So, we are, in at least one sense, back at the point I tend to belabor: Industrial civilization is inherently destructive and making consumer choices within a paradigm of industrial consumption will not save us. We can, in this case, opt out (e.g. eat local) as a way of mitigating our personal costs and perpetuation of this system, if we are privileged enough to be able to afford it (eating local is significantly more expensive where I live).

You mention that `the current enemy is capitalism so we must fight that`, and I think we could equate this with all these wars around the world that happen when the `opposition` is made of diverse groups that just agree with fighting one enemy, but once they win, nothing is really solved and the same dominating patterns rise back again.

What is exactly this system you are trying to fight? Where is it located? The system is not the dollar, the system is not made of things.... Isn´t it a pattern that is manifested in people`s consciousness and interactions?

So first, to be clear, this is not an either or. We need to combat capitalism while educating ourselves and those around us as to the various structures of control and oppression that surround us. I have said this repeatedly. At the same time, I would not dream of telling oppressed people not to fight back until they have better articulated their theories. I think both components are absolutely necessary and must compliment each other if we are to be successful.

The systems that I am talking about are States, Capital, Patriarchy, White Supremacy, Industrial Civilization, etc. These concepts raise their heads at various loci that are made of things (people, infrastructure, resources, etc.). So, take for example autonomous zones that have sprung up in times of protest, this is one idea of what it could mean to be free from a State (although in these cases the state still looms as a specter that has come in and wreaked havoc and destruction). There are numerous examples of what it can look like when people autonomously organize without state control. The Black Panther Survival Programs are another great example of combating capitalism while working to educate and show people that another world is possible.

I believe that people are able to make decisions in their own lives. I believe they are capable of organizing in ways the protect their own self interests while working cooperatively to provide mutual aid for each other. I believe people are capable of working out problems and where necessary, engaging in self defense to protect themselves and their loved ones. I do not think that there is an insidious human nature that makes this impossible. That, imo, is a lie that has been crammed down our throats in order that we might swallow the bitter pill of policing. I'm not saying that everyone will live in harmony, but people who are able to self-select their communities can find places to engage cooperatively in ways that people who are not able to make these choices cannot.

So if a person would change individually their pattern towards this `sustainable/aware` way, even though they are still immersed in a context where others are in the old pattern, how would it look like? How would this individual person act, in terms of what they eat, do, buy, talk, think, act, relate ? That´s the only thing that concerns me, to find that pattern. And like the resonant frequency balls-on-a-string experiment, two balls tied to a string of same lenght will vibrate in resonance even if just one of them is pushed.

I don't know. That will depend on the individual in question, no?

You say that the philosophical part has no direct consequence and you can`t `work with it`. But it most definitely does... I mean, if you`re saying that changing these injustices is the aim, then you are considering that as your criteria for what is desirable or not, significant or not. This will shape the very design of what our tangible plan and direction. So it´s natural we should question what is `significant` and what isn´t. Also, of course we should work for a joint organized effort to change things, end injustices, but unless one realizes the pattern that it represents and how it shapes every single manifestation in ourselves (and how it would appear in such a social structural level) we will just sweep the problem from under one carpet to another.

And again, I think this will look radically different from one place to another, for a myriad of reasons. I don't think there can be one overarching tangible plan. I think people act as they need to act in these moments of crisis. All we can do is talk about ideas and work to further discussions that have literally been taking place for centuries, if not longer. These things will have to come from the ground up, in manners that make sense to those who take them on, based on factors ranging from personal to historical to cultural. Resistance looks different in different places and times precisely because of the myriads of different factors at play. I don't think there are large categorical answers. I know that may sound like a cop-out, but if we look historically (or even recently, say in Greece, Spain, North Africa, hell even the US) I think there is good evidence for it.

I'm all for a discussion about ideas and strategies and the like, but I think that above all, the diversity of ideas, tactics, experiences, etc. requires support if we wish to have the most flexible response to the crises we currently face. What are your thoughts?

Anyway, I'm kinda surprised that a discussion of the pickle we're all in can get this far without anyone speculating on how the teacher plants might help.

This is actually the subject of a talk I will be giving at Boom this year. I'm currently in the process of getting my ideas articulated on paper, but this discussion and the Amber Lyon ones have been assisting me in fleshing them out and I will share some of the ideas in this thread, once I have them in a form where I feel good about sharing them.

Snap!

That's great I'm giving a presentation which might be in the same ballpark in Peru next month: http://vineofthesoul.org/index.php/component/k2/item/181-sebastian-job-phd.

Tryptamines in the Anthropocene: Plant Teachers as Allies during Civilisational Collapse

One of the persistent ideas to come out of western entheogenic circles is that La Madre Ayahuasca has shown up in the nick of time. Just as the trashing of the biosphere approaches a critical point, she is reaching out from the Amazon to embrace the world, showing the way to profoundly reconnect with nature so that we might act before it is too late. This idea of ‘before it is too late’ has always been ambiguous. The sober truth is that it is already way too late for industrial civilisation. Even though the future is inherently unpredictable, all the signs point one way: there is no ‘sustainable future’ for this civilisation. However, this does not mean it is ‘too late’ for humanity as such. And it may be that ayahuasca and the other plant teachers are showing up again in time to help at least some of us go through the collective dying process more consciously, the better that it also be a conscious birthing process. In this presentation, which draws on entheogenic research in Australia, Argentina, Mexico and Peru, I consider how nature, death, grief, rebirth and the planet are being experienced and thought about by users of the teacher plants. I indicate where I think some of the traps lie for orienting to the future, and what the promise of the plant medicines might be. And I consider some new and creative practices emerging to foster a healthy encounter between the plants and the western psyche.

Be good to make time to thrash some more of these issues out...

Yes Please!!! This looks great and I'd love to work some stuff out here, how perfect! There's another Australian Anthropologist who has done some writing on DMT entities and ecological crises, but I can't remember who, at the moment. I have been meaning to get in touch with him for a while as the US uni's were not so interested in my proposed thesis of a similar nature. I'd really love to talk with both of you and I will work on getting some of my ideas on this down so that we can keep this rolling. I'd love to hear some of your ideas and perspectives as well

 

[endlessness]

Imo, it's the "local" point that is valid and I agree with you 100% on this. The thing is, industrial agriculture is majorly destructive (and also unsustainable). The effects of monocultures on once biodiverse ecosystems is catastrophic. There is an animal cost to eating vegeterian/vegan (assuming one is not eating entirely local), however it is usually ignored or externalized. Similarly, there are socioeconomic effects, depending on the crop in question (see: quinoa).

Ok but those things are not mutually exclusive... If we know that local food is more sustainable, and if we know that it is significantly more efficient to eat vegetables than meat in terms of resources costs (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf+html ), I think tending towards both things together is totally reasonable way. Again, this is not a discussion about the ethical aspect of killing an animal, so I dont see how the argument you said ¨there is an animal cost to eating vegetarian¨(which I suppose you mean `accidental/indirect` deaths) comes into play in this argument. Also notice this fact is independent of whether you are in an industrial society or not, in capitalism or not. Even in a local context, you will need more area/water/etc to have animals than to grow plants.

Regarding Quinoa, can you please quote some source regarding social economic problems that are related to it? I read conflicting reports, some publications seem to say there is a significant benefit for the local population. In either case, fair trade etc options can always be considered too. But yeah I dont think quinoa should be the base element of the word`s meal, no single thing should.. More local etc, still applies

So, we are, in at least one sense, back at the point I tend to belabor: Industrial civilization is inherently destructive and making consumer choices within a paradigm of industrial consumption will not save us.

I think you`re oversimplifying what those choices actually are. You use such as an expression as `consumer choices` which seems to reduce the action, minimize the importance. Personally I think that chosing to buy local, support more sustainable organizations, products and projects, all of this can be much more than just `making consumer choices` even if there is money involved.

The systems that I am talking about are States, Capital, Patriarchy, White Supremacy, Industrial Civilization, etc.

Would Kingdoms, Communism, Black Supremacy etc be better? See where I`m getting at?

So, take for example autonomous zones that have sprung up in times of protest, this is one idea of what it could mean to be free from a State (although in these cases the state still looms as a specter that has come in and wreaked havoc and destruction). There are numerous examples of what it can look like when people autonomously organize without state control. The Black Panther Survival Programs are another great example of combating capitalism while working to educate and show people that another world is possible.

I believe that people are able to make decisions in their own lives. I believe they are capable of organizing in ways the protect their own self interests while working cooperatively to provide mutual aid for each other. I believe people are capable of working out problems and where necessary, engaging in self defense to protect themselves and their loved ones. I do not think that there is an insidious human nature that makes this impossible. That, imo, is a lie that has been crammed down our throats in order that we might swallow the bitter pill of policing. I'm not saying that everyone will live in harmony, but people who are able to self-select their communities can find places to engage cooperatively in ways that people who are not able to make these choices cannot.

Agreed.

And again, I think this will look radically different from one place to another, for a myriad of reasons. I don't think there can be one overarching tangible plan. I think people act as they need to act in these moments of crisis. All we can do is talk about ideas and work to further discussions that have literally been taking place for centuries, if not longer. These things will have to come from the ground up, in manners that make sense to those who take them on, based on factors ranging from personal to historical to cultural. Resistance looks different in different places and times precisely because of the myriads of different factors at play. I don't think there are large categorical answers. I know that may sound like a cop-out, but if we look historically (or even recently, say in Greece, Spain, North Africa, hell even the US) I think there is good evidence for it.

I'm all for a discussion about ideas and strategies and the like, but I think that above all, the diversity of ideas, tactics, experiences, etc. requires support if we wish to have the most flexible response to the crises we currently face. What are your thoughts?

Well I pretty much agree with you, I just disagree with your (IMO) disempowering view of the insignificance of individual choices, whether that is regarding what one eats or buys, or anything else. I think it all counts, and this is backed up not only by numbers (as in the ecological impact of food choices), but also by case studies and imo very significant cases and examples (as in the `changed life of the family now surviving on selling local organic food is priceless´ example).

I think when you tell someone who`s trying to take action through what they buy, this is meaningless (and leaving them groundless) instead of working on adding levels to their actions, it is actually counterproductive and goes against the spirit of true revolution. Obviously its not enough to jus buy organic and think you are solving all of the world´s problem and now can rest at ease, but in the same way I also don`t think it is enough to go to a protest and think you are changing the world, or to invent something such as cryptocurrency, or find a meaningful job, or talk well to your family, or or or, but all of these things together do make a huge diference and are already the `New World`, even if you`re talking about a single individual that, due to pure chance alone, was born in and is living currently inside a capitalistic consumer society.

 

[jamie]

I am not buying the idea that vegetarian diets use less resources than omnivorous diets. That has been debunked in "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Keith as far as I am concerned. Technically you don't even have to clear land to eat "farmed" animals really, when pigs for instance actually naturally dwell and forage in forests..hence "woodland" raised pork etc. Polyculture solves so many problems.