The Liberal Fetishisation of 'Nature'

[scarletghoul]

That volcano thread, as well as a debate I accidently sparked on another website, has got me thinking about this a bit. There is a ridiculous fetishisation of nature around now. There's this great emphasis on 'conserving the environment' and 'saving the planet' which has become popular especially among the middle class liberals. This never made sense to me... apart from the fact that the environment is always changing, its quite a nasty thing at the moment anyway. Why would anyone want to keep it the way it is ?? Such superstitious notions about 'nature' as some great magical perfect fairy forest thing seperate from and in opposition to humanity are crazy and must be done away with.

"Ultimate goal should be to destroy 'nature' and take full control of the Earth, shaping it for the good of all !" This statement provoked bad responses from some eco-liberals.

Of course we should avoid careless destruction of useful or potentially useful resources, but we should always see them as that and not as 'nature'. The underlying ideology of most of these liberal environmentalists is that the Earth is pure and that humans are soiling its purity for their own selfish advancement. Its a stupid, annoying, unscientific, anti-scientific, fantasy.

Why do you think this fantasy-ideology is so strong among certain people ? Part of it could be the need to feel there's something greater, replacing God with Nature in accordance with the fashionability of atheism and environmentalism... but if you look closer you can see the liberal fetishisation of 'nature' extends beyond environment with also the idea of 'human nature'. (For some reason they see human nature as antagonistic and seperate from the Other Nature...). There's also obviously this great middle-class drive to be an ethical consumer or whatever, buying products to 'save the environment', buying 'organic food', and various other types of this most disgusting commodity fetishism.

So yeah it just really annoys me haha. What do you all think of this ?? How can we combat it ?

[Invincible Summer]

Why do you think this fantasy-ideology is so strong among certain people ? Part of it could be the need to feel there's something greater, replacing God with Nature in accordance with the fashionability of atheism and environmentalism.

I think you make a very good point here. Lots of these people are also not religious, but "spiritual." They are also generally the ones that uphold the "noble savage" image of cultures, regardless of how reactionary they really are.

Really, this ideology is summed up by the movie Avatar. Also, remember how the news reported people getting depressed after watching the movie because they felt their real lives weren't as "colorful" and "beautiful" as Pandora, and how they wished they lived there? Who the fuck would want to live in the barren wilderness where huge fucking animals can kill you at any moment?

There is definitely a surge in pseudo-primitivism and neo-Luddism in middle- and upper-class liberals. I think the only way to combat it is to deconstruct their romantic fantasies about how great it would be to live "as one with nature," and how technology isn't inherently evil. It's just capitalist production that destroys so callously - planned production with a total restructuring of urban areas (e.g. Urbanates (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ultimate-urbanate-plan-t112088/index.html) ) would satisfy the want/need to have more long-term sustainability and environmental benefits without sacrificing technological advancement

[Crusade]

One motivation for preserving the "environment" is preserving the homes and social framework of certain animals, or at least the ones of those we haven't already eliminated. The attitude of most people regarding animals tends to very inconsistent and conflicted. There are people who eat meat, but have a soft spot for certain animals specifically because an animal is "cute" or "domesticated", so they shouldn't be eaten or killed like those ugly chickens or cows who won't fetch my stick when I throw it. We object to destroying nature preserves and other forested areas where animals live, completely ignoring the fact that most of human civilization used to be where (the now extinct) animals used to live. Although, environmental groups tend to include both "stop where we are now" and "make more land 'natural' again" groups.

To play devil's advocate here, it's worth bringing up... how expansionist should mankind be, really? It's not really just trees and plants we'd be destroying it's an animal's home. I would never put animals before humans, but this isn't exactly a case of necessity here. We have more than enough room, not only for what we need, but waaaay more than enough for just what we WANT. How many more malls and movie theaters could we possibly need? In reality though, it's worth noting that I can only say this from a position of privilege. Nature isn't slowing down human progress though, we have more than enough. The problem is a certain percentage of our population want the whole pie.

[Jacobinist]

You cant have socialism with a depleted and ruined Earth.

[Dimentio]

We must strive to live in balance with the carrying capacity of nature. That doesn't mean that we all must live in poverty or that people should stay poor. It is correct that if we don't change the socio-economic system or reduce its rate of growth, we would most likely face an ecological collapse close to the next century.

The most important thing is to reduce waste, in terms of excess food production, product durability and status consumerism. We could probably decrease production in developed countries with 75% using increased effectivisation.

[Vanguard1917]

Why do you think this fantasy-ideology is so strong among certain people ? Part of it could be the need to feel there's something greater, replacing God with Nature in accordance with the fashionability of atheism and environmentalism... but if you look closer you can see the liberal fetishisation of 'nature' extends beyond environment with also the idea of 'human nature'. (For some reason they see human nature as antagonistic and seperate from the Other Nature...). There's also obviously this great middle-class drive to be an ethical consumer or whatever, buying products to 'save the environment', buying 'organic food', and various other types of this most disgusting commodity fetishism.

Excellent post - especially the paragraph above.

You ask why environmentalist ideology has gained so much popularity in recent years. Focusing on Britain, i would say that there are a few key reasons:

1. The defeat of the working class movement in the 1980s and its retreat from political life. At a time when the organised working class was demanding better living standards, higher wages (i.e. higher levels of material consumption -- the cheeky sods!), and were fighting tooth and nail for their jobs and against the austerity policies which were being dictated for them by both Tory and Labour governments, it would have been rather difficult for environmentalists to put forward their austerity plans as somehow being progressive alternatives. It was only with the retreat of the working class and the virtual disappearance of working class politics that environmentalists were able to step into the vacuum and present their entirely reactionary middle-class views as progressive. It was also around this time that environmentalism began to be embraced by much of the left, which had previously tended to reject environmentalism.

2. Industrial decline in the West and Western capitalists' loss of confidence in industrial growth. Capitalism in its traditional bases was facing industrial decay as the centres of industrial production began shifting to the East. Capitalists in the West started losing confidence in the virtues of industrial growth and there began a massive growth in the financial and service sectors of the economy. The ruling class no longer felt as keen to champion industrial development, and it began seeing industrial development in the East (especially China) as a cause for concern. With this much disquiet concerning industrial development coming from the top of society, the middle class ideology of environmentalism found favourable conditions in which to grow.

3. The demise of the old anti-imperialist movements in the 'third world'. The key objectives of anti-imperialist movements in places like Africa, Latin America and the Middle East were centred around industrial development. They fought imperialism because they saw that imperialism was keeping their countries backward and underdeveloped. Anti-imperialists gained support among their populace by putting forward alternatives to Western-created economic poverty. They said, 'We want what they have and what they have denied us all these years'. It was only with the demise of such movements that Western environmentalists were able to step in and champion underdevelopment in the 'third world'. Thus we nowadays have a situation in which Western eco-NGO coorporations are rushing into impoverished countries and making attempts, often successfully, to convince their governments against pursuing the vast industrial projects that they require, and calling on them instead to pursue local, small-scaled 'sustainable' alternatives.

4. Good old-fashioned petit-bourgeois conservatism and snobbery. The class perspective of the petit-bourgeoisie has always been that of a tendency to be hostile towards economic growth. Middle classes rightly associate industrial growth with the growth of the working class (a class which, in conditions of class conflict, they tend to despise) and, again rightly, with disruption to their middle-class way of life. Environmentalism, with its opposition to large-scale production and its celebration of small, localised economies, is the contemporary ideology through which such anxieities are more and more being expressed. That is why enviromentalism has become so predominant in middle class leafy suburbs and why each mainstream political party has so enthusiastically adopted eco-ideology. And the "buying 'organic food', and various other types of this most disgusting commodity fetishism" you describe has simply become a way for the better off to set themselves apart from the vulgar, unsophisticated masses who don't necessary believe that chicken have to jog around freely and be fed with corn in order to taste good. It's a modern form of snobbery.

[Dimentio]

I wonder if Vanguard1917 is acknowledging any environmental problems at all?

[Vanguard1917]

I wonder if Vanguard1917 is acknowledging any environmental problems at all?

He acknowledges environmental problems, but he doesn't accept environmentalist 'solutions'.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This was an interesting debate in an Environmental Philosophy class I took. Ultimately, I have a view that natural environments are important. For some reason, humans enjoy having access to forests, etc. If you can mimic this enjoyment by planting new trees, or making electronic trees (though the oxygen is a factor) then go for it.

I don't think leaving things untouched is important, but I do think a world that fed and clothed everyone, but had no forests, would be somewhat tragic. There is something to be said for securing aesthetic beauty for future generations.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

On the fetishisation of nature, check out these essays of Guy Robinson's:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/making_materialism_historical.htm

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Robinson_Essay_Two_Introduction.htm

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Robinson_Essay_Three_The_Concept_Of_Nature.htm

[bricolage]

apart from the fact that the environment is always changing, its quite a nasty thing at the moment anyway. Why would anyone want to keep it the way it is ??

Well y'know trees an that tend to be a bit nicer than concrete.
Maybe that's just me...

[Dimentio]

He acknowledges environmental problems, but he doesn't accept environmentalist 'solutions'.

Environmentalism is impossible to bash, since it doesn't really exist. Having seen the Green Movement from the inside, I could say that it is hoplelessly divided between tendencies which do not listen to one another (and therefore are living in the delusion that they all want the same), and which are mostly based on idealism.

Most greens are basically either liberals or conservatives. Those liberals who are green, are mostly green because it is "good" to be green, like supporting Dalai Lama and buying ecological coffee from Ecuador and listen to a charity concert by Michael Jackson. The conservatives are more like people who simply dislike technology and urbanism and want to return to their children's village from the 1950's with cows and pigs.

Then there are the primmies, which basically are an outgrowth of the conservative sphere of the green movement. There are also eco-socialists, but most greens (especially the green-cons) seem more obsessed with making life more expensive for everyone so people won't afford to consume. One green party member I talked to told that he did not only want high tariffs between countries, but between municipalities as well, to prevent people from travelling. I do not remember having heard any Green Party members utter a word against corporations and banks, but a lot of words against "the common people" and their habits of consumption.

In short, I think environmentalism is more a middle class notion than an ideology.

[bcbm]

i don't think there is anything wrong with respecting nature and wanting to leave it undisturbed as much as possible. the natural world, like us, is the product of millions of years of evolution. i don't think having reached the level of development we have gives us the right to just destroy whatever we want. its better to look at our relationship with nature as one of mutual aid. we protect and preserve nature and in turn have access to the wealth of diversity the natural world offers. by observing and understanding nature we can learn more about ourselves and improve our condition exponentially. we should use all of the knowledge and power we have created to try and live in cooperation with the natural world, not opposition to it.

[Vanguard1917]

i don't think there is anything wrong with respecting nature and wanting to leave it undisturbed as much as possible. the natural world, like us, is the product of millions of years of evolution. i don't think having reached the level of development we have gives us the right to just destroy whatever we want. its better to look at our relationship with nature as one of mutual aid. we protect and preserve nature and in turn have access to the wealth of diversity the natural world offers. by observing and understanding nature we can learn more about ourselves and improve our condition exponentially. we should use all of the knowledge and power we have created to try and live in cooperation with the natural world, not opposition to it.

Humanity prospers not by leaving nature as 'undisturbed as possible' and by seeking to keep it unchanged, but by finding ways to utilise it as much as possible in human interests. If there is a single most vital cause of human progress, and a single factor which sets us apart from the animal kingdom and makes us human, it's us increasing the degree of our mastery over our natural surroundings.

[bcbm]

Humanity prospers not by leaving nature as 'undisturbed as possible' and by seeking to leave it unchanged, but by finding ways to utilise it as much as possible in human interests.

leaving nature as undisturbed as possible is utilizing it in human interests. i think there is a great deal we can learn from the natural world that can be used to better our conditions.



If there is a single most vital cause of human progress, and a single factor which sets us apart from the animal kingdom and makes us human, it's us increasing the degree of our mastery over our natural surroundings.

mastery does not have to be synonymous with destruction.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i don't think there is anything wrong with respecting nature and wanting to leave it undisturbed as much as possible.

"Respect" is a two-way street. Obviously we should look after the environment for our own sake, but what precisely is the point of "respecting" something that cannot "respect" you back?

As for not disturbing things, if we can make things better for ourselves, why not?


the natural world, like us, is the product of millions of years of evolution.

That would put us on a level footing, were it not for sapience.


i don't think having reached the level of development we have gives us the right to just destroy whatever we want.

Humanity's destruction of nature happens mainly through ignorance and carelessness, rather than moustache-twirling villainy.


its better to look at our relationship with nature as one of mutual aid.

Assumes equality where little, if any, exists.


we protect and preserve nature and in turn have access to the wealth of diversity the natural world offers. by observing and understanding nature we can learn more about ourselves and improve our condition exponentially. we should use all of the knowledge and power we have created to try and live in cooperation with the natural world, not opposition to it.

Opposition/cooperation is a dichotomy I reject. I think we have a duty to improve on nature.

[bcbm]

"Respect" is a two-way street. Obviously we should look after the environment for our own sake, but what precisely is the point of "respecting" something that cannot "respect" you back?

earth is, so far, the only place we have to observe life and it seems insane to me to so freely destroy the natural world in which our own development took place. the diversity of life on this planet is simply amazing and the complex systems that sustain it all more amazing still. by preserving the natural world and studying it we can gain a better understanding of our planet and ourselves and use that knowledge to better our species.


As for not disturbing things, if we can make things better for ourselves, why not?

because we have the ability to make things better for ourselves without disturbing.


That would put us on a level footing, were it not for sapience.

its not about being on a "level footing," its about realizing how incredible the natural world around us is and the paltry level of our understanding. it seems extremely foolish to just disregard the millions of years of evolution that have created our natural world, as though we have nothing more to gain from them.


Humanity's destruction of nature happens mainly through ignorance and carelessness, rather than moustache-twirling villainy.

i didn't imply otherwise and that doesn't affect my point.


Assumes equality where little, if any, exists.

mutual aid exists everywhere in nature, and i think our position on this planet gives us the unique ability to develop a true understanding of nature and use that knowledge to radically improve our own lives while maintaining the planet for future generations.


Opposition/cooperation is a dichotomy I reject. I think we have a duty to improve on nature.

i think increasing our understanding of nature is pretty essential to improving upon it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

earth is, so far, the only place we have to observe life and it seems insane to me to so freely destroy the natural world in which our own development took place. the diversity of life on this planet is simply amazing and the complex systems that sustain it all more amazing still. by preserving the natural world and studying it we can gain a better understanding of our planet and ourselves and use that knowledge to better our species.

Then why didn't you say that, rather than using such vague, human-centred terms as "respect"?


because we have the ability to make things better for ourselves without disturbing.

Not really; pretty much everything we do as species disturbs nature.


its not about being on a "level footing," its about realizing how incredible the natural world around us is and the paltry level of our understanding. it seems extremely foolish to just disregard the millions of years of evolution that have created our natural world, as though we have nothing more to gain from them.

Which is why I advocate the utilisation of nature's amazing diversity, rather than just saying how wonderful it is.


i didn't imply otherwise and that doesn't affect my point.

It does, actually, since by learning and taking care we can reduce the damage and disturbance. But we're not going to do that with crypto-primitivist words and actions.


mutual aid exists everywhere in nature, and i think our position on this planet gives us the unique ability to develop a true understanding of nature and use that knowledge to radically improve our own lives while maintaining the planet for future generations.

You're confusing mutual aid, a human concept, with symbiosis and co-adaptation.


i think increasing our understanding of nature is pretty essential to improving upon it.

Well, I think we should increase our understanding of nature too. But I think my means and ends differ from yours.

[Dimentio]

I am in agreement with bcbm, though I wouldn't want to mystify nature. Humans are a part of nature, since most of our income in terms of resources are dependent on the existence of other ecosystems. One cannot be a technocrat without understanding those facts.

[ckaihatsu]

---





mastery does not have to be synonymous with destruction.





I think we could finally fulfill our existential-given destiny to be the collective managers of the surface of the earth. By this I mean that we could [1.] stop *fucking up* the natural environment with needless toxins, pollution, etc., and [2.] actually give nature a boost in places by sculpting out certain environmental terrains for the better. This could be about hydrating deserts, spurring plant growth, and so on.

Moreover we might even entertain the idea of *rescuing* *all* animal life from life in the wild -- there's nothing to say that the struggle for survival in the wilderness is *exactly how* animals *should* live -- perhaps we might find ways to ensure food supplies *everywhere*, eliminating the need for *all* predation and life-extinction for the sake of nutrition.

In its place we might develop ways in which to network *all* sentient life to the Internet (and, ultimately, to RevLeft -- mmmbwahahahahahaha...!), giving them their entire lives in leisure (and/or social productivity of some sort).

[bricolage]

He acknowledges environmental problems, but he doesn't accept environmentalist 'solutions'.

What solutions do you propose?
inb4onewordanswerofsocialism

[bcbm]

Then why didn't you say that, rather than using such vague, human-centred terms as "respect"?

i elaborated on what i meant in the rest of my initial post.


Not really; pretty much everything we do as species disturbs nature.now you're just being pedantic.


Which is why I advocate the utilisation of nature's amazing diversity, rather than just saying how wonderful it is.every post i have made in this thread advocates using nature.


It does, actually, since by learning and taking care we can reduce the damage and disturbance. But we're not going to do that with crypto-primitivist words and actions.well since nobody has used advocated any "crypto-primitivist" (lol) actions, but rather learning and taking care, i'm not sure what you're getting at.


You're confusing mutual aid, a human concept, with symbiosis and co-adaptation.this "confusion" has existed for over a century.


Well, I think we should increase our understanding of nature too. But I think my means and ends differ from yours.i think we need to have nature to increase our understanding of it. what are you means and ends? what do you imagine mine are?

[dubaba]

I basically grew up in the outdoors so it is very important to me. We as humans have no right to destroy the environment because it will negativly effect our relatives generations into the future and it will kill animals that are really no different then us. Humans dont "own" the land, we simply live on it and we have no right to destroy it. I dont know about you but I want my kids and there kids to be able to experience the great outdoors.

[SocialistCatisSocialist]

Is out planet dying? Yes. Are we the direct cause? Not likely. Is one brand of humidifier filters as opposed to another going to help? Not at all.

The only way to actually alter the course of "global warming" is to initiate a project in which we are actually doing something to PRESERVE aspects of our environment, thus making them deteriorate less. I wasn't sure what article I was reading, but one scientist actually posed that idea. Was it Skeptic magazine? I'll get back to you on that.

Basically, there's no sense in green-washing or any of that B.S. :)

[WhitemageofDOOM]

We as humans have no right to destroy the environment because it will negativly effect our relatives generations into the future. I dont know about you but I want my kids and there kids to be able to experience the great outdoors.

No personally i do not want my children to grow up in a world where "Survival of the fittest, death to the week." is the only law.
I don't want my children to die of dysentry when there 20.
I don't want my children torn apart by vicious predators.
I don't want my children to live in a group dominated by the biggest strongest male.
I don't want my children to act like savage chimps and kill people just because there not part of there little monkey tribe.

All of these things would be my children's fate if our ancestors hadn't fought tooth and nail to push back the darkness and carve out regions of relative safety where we could live in peace.


and it will kill animals that are really no different then us. Humans dont "own" the land, we simply live on it and we have no right to destroy it.Hint: If animals are really no different from us they would all happily do the same thing we do if given a chance. As it turns out they don't, we do.

We have the power, ergo we have the right to adapt the environment to us. By the very laws of the nature you so treasure if they can't adapt then by definition they deserve death.

[Sir Comradical]

This idea that we have to "save the planet" is just not accurate, what's meant by this is that we must maintain the conditions on this planet that are necessary for our survival. When we say we want to "save the planet", what we actually mean is that we want to preserve our own existence as humans, because even if we manage to turn the earth into an uninhabitable toxic wasteland, the planet will go on existing, it's just that we won't.

[bricolage]

I think it is interesting (and apologies for the crude North/South divide) that 'leftists' in the Global North constantly assume anything to do with nature/environment/ecology is middle class elitism whereas those in the South (who are already experiencing the negative effects of ecological destruction) are, on the whole, raising these same issues. I'm not saying the solutions proposed are the same, they are vastly different, and it may well be these issues are being addressed for very different reasons however it it ridiculous to, as many people do, reduce all these arguments to 'petit-bourgeois'/'middle class'/'hippy'.

[Lynx]

There are scientific, aesthetic and practical reasons for preserving natural ecosystems. Fetish not required.

[La Comédie Noire]

Not to mention environmentalism is a class issue. I don't know where people get the idea environmentalism is the sole preoccupation of white middle class liberals. I mean who lives under the power lines, whose drinking water gets polluted, who works in dirty and unsafe factories?

I've seen plenty of working class people advocating a cleaner, better world right next to the middle class liberals, probably with more earnest because it's an immediate issue for them.

[bricolage]

I don't know where people get the idea environmentalism is the sole preoccupation of white middle class liberals.

I think it's probably because these environmentalists are the ones with money and access to power. They are media friendly and can be easily assimilated into dominant discourses and their ideas used as excuses to push through damaging policies. The problem is when anything to do with ecology/the environment gets conflated with the 'green' narrative, whereby we have to save 'the planet' or 'the human race'. This is very problematic as it positions these as universal, homogenous subjects ignoring the vast differences in class, race, gender, access to resources etc etc. In doing so in order to 'save' these abstract phenomena anything is justified. What we need to do is rescue genuine 'environmentalism' from this, to reverse the co-option and to make it known yes we need to act on this but this is not contradictory to our overall struggle, it is an inherent part of it. You won't reach communism through eco-kettles and different light bulbs but then you also won't reach communism by destroying the very essence of what we rely on to live.

[scarletghoul]

Im not saying ''environmentalists are all middle class we should destroy all plants hur hur etc", what I'm saying is that its unscientific and just wrong to think of 'nature' as some magical thing completely seperate and differant to human activity and to think that all humans do is 'unnatural'. Of course we should oppose complete destruction of rainforests and shit like that, but we should oppose it for logical scientific humanist reasons (ie preservation of useful resources, opposition to stealing land from native people etc), not from the silly ideal that nature is a magical fairy forest which must remain undisturbed. Unfortunately many annoying middle class first world environment people take the latter view. Furthermore they might use these 'environmental concerns' as a way to make themselves feel like they're doing something good for the earth, buying some stupid lightbulb or something to excuse their parasitic existance off the back of the third world and working class. This is not at all the same as a tribal in India fighting to prevent the destruction of their homeland for example.

[bricolage]

Well ok but also what you said was 'apart from the fact that the environment is always changing, its quite a nasty thing at the moment anyway. Why would anyone want to keep it the way it is ??'
Ignoring the fact that we want to keep it the way it is because the way it is allows us to survive. It's not about it being a 'magical fairy forest', rather a complex system that we think we can ravage and suffer no adverse consequences.
And anyway like I said even if we could burn down every rainforest and still survive fine I'd be against it, who wants to live in a concrete world?

[scarletghoul]

Ignoring the fact that we want to keep it the way it is because the way it is allows us to survive.
I'm sure we could survive with a few alterations and technological advances to make life better for people. What is wrong with that ? Are you denying that there are some really crap sides to 'nature' ?


It's not about it being a 'magical fairy forest', rather a complex system that we think we can ravage and suffer no adverse consequences.
Of course the ravaging must be selective and we need to try to understand things a lot more to understand the consequences..


And anyway like I said even if we could burn down every rainforest and still survive fine I'd be against it, who wants to live in a concrete world?
Well I agree, I like flowers and animals and stuff a lot. I never said it was just a question of survival; human enjoyment must also be a deciding factor in what we do to the world, and certain pieces of the environment should be preserved for this..

[bricolage]

I'm sure we could survive with a few alterations and technological advances to make life better for people. What is wrong with that ? Are you denying that there are some really crap sides to 'nature' ?

Such as? I'm not denying there are things that are 'crap' or that we might not like, however as I said nature is a complex ecosystem and those crap things might be necessary for non-crap things to continue. I don't pretend to know much about ecological stuff but I think it's dangerous to say that we can destroy crap things and not expect it to have (at least some) negative conequences.


Of course the ravaging must be selective and we need to try to understand things a lot more to understand the consequences..

Problem is we don't understand these things yet we carry on ravaging.


Well I agree, I like flowers and animals and stuff a lot. I never said it was just a question of survival; human enjoyment must also be a deciding factor in what we do to the world, and certain pieces of the environment should be preserved for this..

Broadly agree. Although I might take issue with 'certain'.

[scarletghoul]

Such as? I'm not denying there are things that are 'crap' or that we might not like, however as I said nature is a complex ecosystem and those crap things might be necessary for non-crap things to continue. I don't pretend to know much about ecological stuff but I think it's dangerous to say that we can destroy crap things and not expect it to have (at least some) negative conequences.

Problem is we don't understand these things yet we carry on ravaging.

Broadly agree. Although I might take issue with 'certain'.
Do you think we should preserve malaria ?

[GX.]

"Ultimate goal should be to destroy 'nature' and take full control of the Earth, shaping it for the good of all !"

Sounds like you're "fetishizing" technology

[The Gallant Gallstone]

How can we turn this "fetishisation of nature" to our advantage?

I think it can be harnessed in the criticism of capitalism, especially as Comrade Floyd pointed out, if we stress the issues most relevant to the working class.

[anticap]

The Liberal Fetishisation of 'Nature'

Or, "Recognizing the Importance of Not Shitting Where You Sleep."


No personally i do not want my children to grow up in a world where "Survival of the fittest, death to the week." is the only law.

This has not been the case for the overwhelming majority of humans for many thousands of years. With rare exceptions, we simply are not prey anymore.


I don't want my children to die of dysentry when there 20.

I won't even bother researching the last time this was a serious concern anywhere with even a basic understanding of hygiene and the barest of such facilities. Instead, I'll simply inform you that it would be a caricature to suggest that anyone but a primitivist would want to dismantle this sort of thing.


I don't want my children torn apart by vicious predators.

And again, this is simply no longer a serious concern, and hasn't been for millennia. To the contrary: humans, in their screeching-primate terror, have relegated their potential predators to a few pockets of isolation, where they cling to a precarious existence and avoid extinction by the slimmest of margins. Suggested reading: David Quammen's Monster of God: The Man-Eating Predator in the Jungles of History and the Mind (http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1PCH-K_ioMC).


I don't want my children to live in a group dominated by the biggest strongest male.

This is not even inherent to human pre-civilization (suggested reading: Chris Harman's A People’s History of the World (http://books.google.com/books?id=dmoTAQAAIAAJ)), and is certainly not inherent to the thinking of anyone who merely regards self-restraint with respect to the environment as wise.


I don't want my children to act like savage chimps and kill people just because there not part of there little monkey tribe.

I'm finding it difficult to respond to these absurd non sequiturs with anything but mocking scorn.


All of these things would be my children's fate if our ancestors hadn't fought tooth and nail to push back the darkness and carve out regions of relative safety where we could live in peace.

And now that we have left the caves, I think we can relax a bit and ease up on the hysterics.


Hint: If animals are really no different from us they would all happily do the same thing we do if given a chance. As it turns out they don't, we do.

I doubt anyone would make the claim that "animals are really no different from us" in the literal sense. I believe the point to be that Homo sapiens is not a god-ape, but just another animal, with unique faculties that cannot logically be deemed superior to those of other species. (If we ranked species by noses, then we'd have to regard elephants as our superiors. Conveniently, we rank species by intelligence, which just so happens to be our strong point. Go figure!)


We have the power, ergo we have the right...

Utter drivel. Rights do not derive from power. They derive from agreement with our fellow humans that we will or won't treat one another in certain ways. As consensus changes, so do rights.


...to adapt the environment to us.

I don't know of anyone, sans primitivists, who would object to this, within reason. And that's what's at issue: how it is done, to what extent, to what end, with what degree of regard for the well-being of future generations of highly-advanced cultures as well as the self-determination of those of the less-advanced (whom we are not entitled to impose ourselves on simply by virtue of our ability to do so, incidentally), etc.

Unfortunately, some here do not appear to be equipped to recognize such nuance, and instead regard anyone who might consider these issues as mystics.


By the very laws of the nature you so treasure if they can't adapt then by definition they deserve death.

Humans are animals. We are part of the universe -- of nature. We exist neither inside the universe (as though it were a hollowed out sphere where we just happened to find ourselves), nor outside nature (as though we didn't evolve by the same process as every other life form, and weren't composed of the same natural stuff).

Thus, if one group of humans pits itself against another, then by your own logic you must be in favor of the genocidal elimination of the losers. I trust that I don't need to posit hypothetical scenarios in order for you to see the problem with this, from the perspective of a revolutionary leftist with a blood oath against the ruling (i.e., dominant) class.


I think it's dangerous to say that we can destroy crap things and not expect it to have (at least some) negative conequences.

Indeed it is, and the book by Quammen, which I mentioned above, references studies that leave virtually no doubt of the fact that we cannot pick-and-choose in such a manner and expect to get away with it.

[CartCollector]

Utter drivel. Rights do not derive from power.
Oh really? Then where do private property rights come from? Those who farmed the commons were more than happy to give it to capitalists, weren't they. Coercion had nothing at all to do with it, oh no. It's not like rights are taken by the ruling class when they come to power or anything.

[anticap]

where do private property rights come from?

They don't exist. Private property is imposed by force, as you said.

I smell a derail coming, as to the nature of rights. I have my own views on that, and would be glad to discuss it with you, but I'd prefer that you start another thread. I've said my piece on the subject at hand, and don't intend to respond further to those who would equate environmental concerns with mysticism.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

This idea that we have to "save the planet" is just not accurate, what's meant by this is that we must maintain the conditions on this planet that are necessary for our survival. When we say we want to "save the planet", what we actually mean is that we want to preserve our own existence as humans, because even if we manage to turn the earth into an uninhabitable toxic wasteland, the planet will go on existing, it's just that we won't.

But really that goes without saying. No one doesn't want cleaner water, cleaner air, more efficient resource usage. Well no sane people.

But that doesn't mean Saving the cuddly wuddly animals either, or not expanding into untouched wilderness.

Nature is a resource, wasting a resource is foolish, but so is not exploiting it to it's fullest.


Not to mention environmentalism is a class issue. I don't know where people get the idea environmentalism is the sole preoccupation of white middle class liberals.

Nature as supernatural deity/Utopian paradise is contained primarily to white middle class people.


Such as? I'm not denying there are things that are 'crap' or that we might not like, however as I said nature is a complex ecosystem and those crap things might be necessary for non-crap things to continue. I don't pretend to know much about ecological stuff but I think it's dangerous to say that we can destroy crap things and not expect it to have (at least some) negative conequences.

We've been getting rid of shit we don't like for all of human history.
We build towns and cities, we cure disease, we kill off the other alpha predators.



And now that we have left the caves, I think we can relax a bit and ease up on the hysterics.

Ok to be fair i am being hyperbolic. I admit.
But my point is we left the caves, and have been adapting our environment to suit us for all of human history, why should we stop? There is no point you can say without hypocrisy "This and no more."


Utter drivel. Rights do not derive from power. They derive from agreement with our fellow humans that we will or won't treat one another in certain ways. As consensus changes, so do rights.

Last i checked, the consensus wields quite a bit of power, and would not be able to enforce such rights without that power.


I don't know of anyone, sans primitivists, who would object to this, within reason.

Within reason is a big but ain't it?


And that's what's at issue: how it is done, to what extent, to what end, with what degree of regard for the well-being of future generations of highly-advanced cultures as well as the self-determination of those of the less-advanced (whom we are not entitled to impose ourselves on simply by virtue of our ability to do so, incidentally), etc.

Or in much more honest erms.
"At what point is it ok to start sacrificing humans and human happiness to benefit parts of the environment that we don't need."

Me? I'd happily sacrifice all the tigers in the world to save one human life.

[Sir Comradical]

But really that goes without saying. No one doesn't want cleaner water, cleaner air, more efficient resource usage. Well no sane people.

But that doesn't mean Saving the cuddly wuddly animals either, or not expanding into untouched wilderness.

Nature is a resource, wasting a resource is foolish, but so is not exploiting it to it's fullest.

Agreed.

[bailey_187]

I think David Harvey said "There is nothing unnatural about an ant hill, so there is, surely, nothing particularly unnatural about New York City"

Which pissed of this shitty Liberal in this review of his book in the liberal New Stateman:
http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/04/harvey-capital-class-nothing

[Lynx]

I'd happily sacrifice all the tigers in the world to save one human life.
In what fantasy world do you live in is it necessary to sacrifice all the tigers in the world to save one human life?

[ZeroNowhere]

By saying 'I would' there, they were clearly putting forth a hypothetical situation. If you were trying to make some other point with that question, it is generally considered beneficial to get to the point.

[bcbm]

But really that goes without saying. No one doesn't want cleaner water, cleaner air, more efficient resource usage. Well no sane people.

But that doesn't mean Saving the cuddly wuddly animals either, or not expanding into untouched wilderness.

Nature is a resource, wasting a resource is foolish, but so is not exploiting it to it's fullest.


you act as though there is no benefit to leaving natural areas relatively untouched and preserving animal species.

[bricolage]

Do you think we should preserve malaria ?

I think we should protect people against malaria, however I'm then not going to say we should wipe out all mosquitos that are infected with malaria (which is the natural conclusion of 'controlling nature') as I'm sure this would have consequences that we don't know nor understand.

[Stand Your Ground]

In what fantasy world do you live in is it necessary to sacrifice all the tigers in the world to save one human life?
That's just foolish, human or non-human no life should be taken for granted.

[La Comédie Noire]

Nature as supernatural deity/Utopian paradise is contained primarily to white middle class people.

Why is it ideas we don't like get pushed on white middle class liberals? All the Liberals
I've met in the environmental movement have scientifically sound reasoning to back their convictions. Not to mention most of the "out there" hippies I met are all poor as dirt.

If I may make a counter hypothesis, the majority of the American working class has been conservative. I think we are the first generation of the American working class truly being exposed to ideas outside our material constraints. Unfortunately we still harbor the prejudices of our class, anti intellectualism, dislike of "identity" politics, belief that people are stupid and must be led ect.

Class resentment is also a factor, if you've ever been in a mixture of middle class and working class people, the middle class are better culturally prepared to take charge of political things. They know how to pull levers in an organization, who to call, how to make speeches, and more importantly how to promote themselves. That says something about the structure of political organizations too.

There's also the lingering vestiges of christian thought to contend with, we as westerners think things must have a definite end and we as humans are to insignificant to ever understand it completely. The historical example of Rome casts a shadow over everything we do, Rome fell why not us? We can't help, but see the end of civilization in everything that happens. Compare that to the East, they have a much more cyclical view of things and are more concerned with what's going on now then what's going to happen. They hold all the same scientific theories about nature as us (global warming, peak oil) but they don't develop cults and end of the world scenarios surrounding them. They never had a Rome.

It's a lot to fight against and criticize, but we have to as Marx said make a ruthless criticism of everything. Even our own prejudices.

[NGNM85]

I think we need to make serious effort to protect the environment, and endangered species. However this dichotomy between "natural" and technology/modern civilization is simply bogus. To my mind, in most ways technology is just as "natural" as anything. Beavers build dams, men build Cray supercomputers. Both are produced according to evolved physical traits and behavior patterns, out of the same periodic elements everything else is made out of.

[Ovi]

I don't want my children to die of dysentry when there 20.
I don't want my children torn apart by vicious predators.
I don't want my children to live in a group dominated by the biggest strongest male.
I don't want my children to act like savage chimps and kill people just because there not part of there little monkey tribe.

And you felt the need to share it with us because...
If you don't like the outdoors then good for you, but you have no right to take that away from the rest of us.


No personally i do not want my children to grow up in a world where "Survival of the fittest, death to the week." is the only law.



Hint: If animals are really no different from us they would all happily do the same thing we do if given a chance. As it turns out they don't, we do.

But that's exactly survival of the fittest, in this case we humans being the fittest.



There's this great emphasis on 'conserving the environment' and 'saving the planet' which has become popular especially among the middle class liberals. This never made sense to me... apart from the fact that the environment is always changing, its quite a nasty thing at the moment anyway. Why would anyone want to keep it the way it is ?? Such superstitious notions about 'nature' as some great magical perfect fairy forest thing seperate from and in opposition to humanity are crazy and must be done away with.

"Ultimate goal should be to destroy 'nature' and take full control of the Earth, shaping it for the good of all !"

Why would you want to destroy it? We don't need to take full control of the Earth to provide a decent life for all the people on the planet so what gives? So we can consume more? Equating consumption with happiness is a bourgeois idea and this is what should be done away with.

[bailey_187]

Equating consumption with happiness is a bourgeois idea and this is what should be done away with.

No, the bourgeosie loves to scorn the working class for striving for an increase in material goods. If Communism is a world of material abundance, it is a world of increased consumption - how is that a bourgeois idea?

[ckaihatsu]

However this dichotomy between "natural" and technology/modern civilization is simply bogus.


There *is* an inherent distinction, though, because nature itself could never produce the study of chemistry and with it the ability to intentionally create large quantities of concentrated substances that have a deleterious effect when introduced back into the natural world. (Or nuclear fission, warfare, etc.)

[anticap]

The argument that everything we do is "natural" is based on the fact that everything that exists is part of the natural universe, everything we do involves interacting with nature, everything we make is made of natural elements, etc. But that's not how people use the word. If they did, then there'd be no need for any other words to describe anything that we do. The fact that we have so many words means that in practice we seek to distinguish things from simply being "natural" in the sense used in the argument. In that sense, capitalist exploitation is just something that occurs in nature, by natural processes. But of course we don't see it as natural, so we call it "exploitation." People reserve the word "natural" to distinguish, e.g., a green field from a cold steel rail, even though both are equally "natural" according to those who use the word in an uncommon sense when making absurd arguments to justify certain human behaviors.

[Ocean Seal]

There are a great many reasons for preserving nature. First there is the idea that without the resources that nature provides us the human race would go extinct. Second if we let the multi-national corporations do as they please with nature it will adversely harm our health. Third you can state that you will only conserve the resources necessary to man, but this would also be harmful as if we destroy ecosystem after ecosystem we are upsetting certain balances of the Earth ie: If we destroy a rainforest floods will ensue and if we kill a certain species of animal another animal will become more populous and adversely harm humanity.
The Earth is our home we must protect it in order to protect ourselves.
By the way this is all without considering ethics.

[Ovi]

No, the bourgeosie loves to scorn the working class for striving for an increase in material goods. If Communism is a world of material abundance, it is a world of increased consumption - how is that a bourgeois idea?
It is this striving for ever increasing consumption that makes people view the rich as legitimate: if we work hard enough we might as well be rich and enjoy a life of mindless consumption. Plus, with the mentality that we should consume as much as possible you realize that communism is impossible, right?

[Ocean Seal]

It is this striving for ever increasing consumption that makes people view the rich as legitimate: if we work hard enough we might as well be rich and enjoy a life of mindless consumption. Plus, with the mentality that we should consume as much as possible you realize that communism is impossible, right?
Point well made.

[ckaihatsu]

No, the bourgeosie loves to scorn the working class for striving for an increase in material goods. If Communism is a world of material abundance, it is a world of increased consumption - how is that a bourgeois idea?





It is this striving for ever increasing consumption that makes people view the rich as legitimate: if we work hard enough we might as well be rich and enjoy a life of mindless consumption. Plus, with the mentality that we should consume as much as possible you realize that communism is impossible, right?


I'd like to suggest that you're both defining the *endpoints* of a spectrum of materialism, from an idealized, ascetic-like *denial* of personal material development on one side, to a critique of bourgeois-encouraged mindless consumerism on the other side.

By nature we *are* tool-users and we shouldn't be in denial that our adoption of (contemporary) tool-usage allows us to *develop* our abilities in profoundly sophisticated ways that we would not otherwise be able to do *without* access to such material goods and experiences -- as with politics and culture.

Regarding the material world I find it handy to visualize three categories, based on the destination(s) of a societal material surplus -- towards labor self-perpetuation (no surplus), towards pleasure / leisure (which would include self-development), or towards ownership and management (independent from any given mode of production).

So, basing our politics on materialism, we shouldn't be dismissive of any *personal* reasons we may have for fighting for a proletariat-based administration of the world of material goods and services -- it's just that, due to material reality itself, the more time we spend in personal pursuits is *less* time spent in furthering *collective* goals like the abolition of capitalism altogether.

[NGNM85]

There *is* an inherent distinction, though, because nature itself could never produce the study of chemistry...

I still think this is a bogus distinction. Life is a part of "nature", evolution is a part of "nature", man developed technology through using "natural" evolved adaptations.


...and with it the ability to intentionally create large quantities of concentrated substances that have a deleterious effect when introduced back into the natural world. (Or nuclear fission, warfare, etc.)

How about lethal viruses? Or volcanos? Supernovas? Or the cretaceous-tertiary extinction?

[jake williams]

Excellent post - especially the paragraph above.

You ask why environmentalist ideology has gained so much popularity in recent years. Focusing on Britain, i would say that there are a few key reasons:

1. The defeat of the working class movement in the 1980s and its retreat from political life. At a time when the organised working class was demanding better living standards, higher wages (i.e. higher levels of material consumption -- the cheeky sods!), and were fighting tooth and nail for their jobs and against the austerity policies which were being dictated for them by both Tory and Labour governments, it would have been rather difficult for environmentalists to put forward their austerity plans as somehow being progressive alternatives. It was only with the retreat of the working class and the virtual disappearance of working class politics that environmentalists were able to step into the vacuum and present their entirely reactionary middle-class views as progressive. It was also around this time that environmentalism began to be embraced by much of the left, which had previously tended to reject environmentalism.

2. Industrial decline in the West and Western capitalists' loss of confidence in industrial growth. Capitalism in its traditional bases was facing industrial decay as the centres of industrial production began shifting to the East. Capitalists in the West started losing confidence in the virtues of industrial growth and there began a massive growth in the financial and service sectors of the economy. The ruling class no longer felt as keen to champion industrial development, and it began seeing industrial development in the East (especially China) as a cause for concern. With this much disquiet concerning industrial development coming from the top of society, the middle class ideology of environmentalism found favourable conditions in which to grow.

3. The demise of the old anti-imperialist movements in the 'third world'. The key objectives of anti-imperialist movements in places like Africa, Latin America and the Middle East were centred around industrial development. They fought imperialism because they saw that imperialism was keeping their countries backward and underdeveloped. Anti-imperialists gained support among their populace by putting forward alternatives to Western-created economic poverty. They said, 'We want what they have and what they have denied us all these years'. It was only with the demise of such movements that Western environmentalists were able to step in and champion underdevelopment in the 'third world'. Thus we nowadays have a situation in which Western eco-NGO coorporations are rushing into impoverished countries and making attempts, often successfully, to convince their governments against pursuing the vast industrial projects that they require, and calling on them instead to pursue local, small-scaled 'sustainable' alternatives.

4. Good old-fashioned petit-bourgeois conservatism and snobbery. The class perspective of the petit-bourgeoisie has always been that of a tendency to be hostile towards economic growth. Middle classes rightly associate industrial growth with the growth of the working class (a class which, in conditions of class conflict, they tend to despise) and, again rightly, with disruption to their middle-class way of life. Environmentalism, with its opposition to large-scale production and its celebration of small, localised economies, is the contemporary ideology through which such anxieities are more and more being expressed. That is why enviromentalism has become so predominant in middle class leafy suburbs and why each mainstream political party has so enthusiastically adopted eco-ideology. And the "buying 'organic food', and various other types of this most disgusting commodity fetishism" you describe has simply become a way for the better off to set themselves apart from the vulgar, unsophisticated masses who don't necessary believe that chicken have to jog around freely and be fed with corn in order to taste good. It's a modern form of snobbery.
I think you raise a lot of points here which are rarely heard, important, and accurate, and honestly I thank you for bringing them up. I think in particular that the problems raised by environmentalism are perhaps mainly rooted in the decline of working class, and anti-imperialist, politics, and that there are many, many clear examples of this today.

That said, for one thing I think I might formulate it differently than you appear to, though it's possible I'm misreading your argument. I think it's important to distinguish three things.

First, an environmentalism, a reactionary, anti-materialist ideology consisting of what SG referred to in the opening post, a liberal fetishization of "nature", and an ideology which any Marxist should be able to see through as the sort of ideological attack distracting us from class politics which the ruling class throws at us constantly throughout history.

Second, however, there is an utterly different category - sincere concerns, often on the part of working class people, about the many, many environmental problems caused by industrial capitalism. These, as has been pointed out and I should think you've heard before and thus must be ignoring because it can't really be denied, are often inflicted on the politically weak, so in a capitalist society, the working class. I should hardly have to give examples, but just to go through the motions: mining is done in areas where working class people live, or where only the wealthy can afford to leave, with extensive destruction of aspects of the environment which are important for people, including toxification; deforestation, which can lead to soil erosion, destruction of land fertility, loss of groundwater, landslides, and so on, is likewise done in places where workers or peasants live; polluting industries, and their byproducts, which at best make life uncomfortable, dirty and smelly and at worst cause serious health problems, as can be clearly shown, are, of course, placed in areas where working class people live, and increasingly where the third world working class lives. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have mining, forestry, or industry, we quite certainly should, but that these activities cause, at least right now, environmental problems which hurt the working class and which elicit natural, understandable, if not always completely rational responses.

Third, there is a global environmental movement which combines both of these tendencies, and some other minor ones, in a complex, heterogenous set of groupings whose internal contradictions play out in complex ways.


Edit: I forgot to add one thing, which is that I also don't agree completely with some of the specific arguments you make about the nature of environmentalism. For one thing, I don't think it's universally true that the ruling class, globally or even in the West, is particularly bothered by industrial development in the third world. Many capitalists, in fact, are ecstatic, because this provides massive new markets, resources, capital, and so on. Financial capitalists especially are excited about "third world" industrial development, in fact if anything what they're trying to destroy is first world industrial infrastructure, because labour costs are high and because a few of them are hoping they can squeeze a little out of speculating against the euro and the dollar.

Further, while I get a lot of flak for saying this, while certainly most "environmentalism" on the part of ruling class political forces is a either insincere opportunist "greenwashing" to win votes, or political cover for implementing policies in their class interest against workers - I think that there is what is perhaps a small, but nonetheless a significant part of the working class that even beyond "green capitalism", environmental problems are potentially so dangerous that is even in the interests of the ruling class to try to find something to to about them. I think this is a small part of an ugly picture involving ruling class "environmentalism", but I think it's an important one.


He acknowledges environmental problems, but he doesn't accept environmentalist 'solutions'.
The trouble I have with this, however, is twofold. First, you haven't made it clear what environmental problems you acknowledge, at least that I've ever seen. Second, as was mentioned, you certainly don't seem to make clear what solutions exactly you do support, which in light both of the sharpness of the problems involved, and of your interest to see environmentalists' proposed responses done away with, I would think it quite logical on your part to make clear.

[(A)(_|]

I think Zizek had somehting to say about this in the movie "examined life". He imagined that nature was fast becoming the new deity or unquestionable authority of the human race, and that if man was to pursure a purely egoistic means to reach his self preservation and insure himself a lengthier life-span, he would have to further alienate himslef form this spontaneous nature. He didn't believe nature was fixed but rather that our perceptions of how it should be changed over time; that we shouldn't idolized it as being the purest premise by which life was prepetuated but rather that by idolizing it, it stood in our way and created this divine line that humans could not trespass.

For me personally, I feel that by ensuing any physical harm upon animals ie: by destroying that natural habitat; by eating them because I liked the taste of their flesh, I would be completely contradicting myslef. I believe I shouldn't do unto others what I wouldn't like be done to myslef; I feel that by -even for purely egoistic reasons- not killing another human being but, at the same time, eating the flesh of an animal, we're allowing ourselves to fall into inherent logical contradictions. You can't say: I believe in equality only when it favors my personal benefit; simply because this would imply you believed in inequality for other circumstances. A contradiction. Murdering animals and destroying their habitats is a contradiction.

[maskerade]

my problem with western environmentalism is that it upholds this cartesian dualism of civilization/culture and nature. As in, these middle class liberals want to save the environment from humans without realizing that humans are an intricate part of the environment, like all other animals. And then they go to places like the DR Congo and tell the Mbuti pygmies to stop living in the forest - as they have done for thousands of years - simply because they wish to preserve the forest.

Environmentalism is important though, it's just that the "green" idea of it seems to be very distorted. I consider myself to be an eco-socialist, but that's not because I place the planet before people, but the contrary. I also think that this planet isn't purely for human exploitation, but also for all the other life living on it. That seems pretty obvious to me...

[ckaihatsu]

I still think this is a bogus distinction. Life is a part of "nature", evolution is a part of "nature", man developed technology through using "natural" evolved adaptations.


Yes, there's no denying that humanity has been brought about from natural processes, but there *is* a paradigm shift when people develop societal structures complex enough to re-shape the physical makeup of the natural environment (at large scales).

More to the point even than the physical reshaping of the environment is the set of *goals* or *purposes* behind the reshaping -- *that's* when we can *really* differentiate between nature-based and societal-based, as in survival vs. profit-seeking.





How about lethal viruses? Or volcanos? Supernovas? Or the cretaceous-tertiary extinction?


What about them? (So you're saying that nature can be just as destructive as anything humanity can produce?)

[ckaihatsu]

Excellent repost here -- for whatever it's worth I would suggest swapping point #2 with point #1, in terms of importance.





I think Zizek had somehting to say about this in the movie "examined life". He imagined that nature was fast becoming the new deity or unquestionable authority of the human race,


This indicates to me that humanity's social progress, such as it is, has now ground down to a complete halt. Anytime the adults of a period relinquish "leadership" (such as it is) to the younger -- even child-aged -- generations, to "deities", or to "nature", we know that they've run out of ideas and societal usefulness.





and that if man was to pursure a purely egoistic means to reach his self preservation and insure himself a lengthier life-span, he would have to further alienate himslef form this spontaneous nature. He didn't believe nature was fixed but rather that our perceptions of how it should be changed over time; that we shouldn't idolized it as being the purest premise by which life was prepetuated but rather that by idolizing it, it stood in our way and created this divine line that humans could not trespass.


Agreed. Nothing in nature, except for human beings / human society, is collectively self-conscious.





For me personally, I feel that by ensuing any physical harm upon animals ie: by destroying that natural habitat; by eating them because I liked the taste of their flesh, I would be completely contradicting myslef. I believe I shouldn't do unto others what I wouldn't like be done to myslef; I feel that by -even for purely egoistic reasons- not killing another human being but, at the same time, eating the flesh of an animal, we're allowing ourselves to fall into inherent logical contradictions. You can't say: I believe in equality only when it favors my personal benefit; simply because this would imply you believed in inequality for other circumstances. A contradiction. Murdering animals and destroying their habitats is a contradiction.


For most human-survival and human-cultural purposes there most likely *wouldn't* be any need to wantonly destroy natural habitats. It's difficult to gauge, though, since the only history of massive growth of the human population and its culture has been through the scientific and industrial revolutions, enabled by capital-based growth and development.

So this only begs the question of socialism -- hopefully the worst destructiveness of mass development is behind us and humanity is now enabled to bring about a digital-based collectivism that doesn't require capital -- and with minimal industrialism, too.

[NGNM85]

Yes, there's no denying that humanity has been brought about from natural processes, but there *is* a paradigm shift when people develop societal structures complex enough to re-shape the physical makeup of the natural environment (at large scales).

More to the point even than the physical reshaping of the environment is the set of *goals* or *purposes* behind the reshaping -- *that's* when we can *really* differentiate between nature-based and societal-based, as in survival vs. profit-seeking.

So, something becomes "unnatural", or "non-natural" when it is the result of deliberate machinations by a sentient being? (Beyond instinct.)

"Goals." Yes, the goals are different. We create art, we try to explore and understand our environment, we seek amusement, and intellectual stimulation, etc. We are unique in that respect. All other creatures focus almost exclusively on survival.


What about them? (So you're saying that nature can be just as destructive as anything humanity can produce?)

Much more so, if we're going to include stellar phenomena.

[ckaihatsu]

So, something becomes "unnatural", or "non-natural" when it is the result of deliberate machinations by a sentient being? (Beyond instinct.)

"Goals." Yes, the goals are different. We create art, we try to explore and understand our environment, we seek amusement, and intellectual stimulation, etc. We are unique in that respect. All other creatures focus almost exclusively on survival.


It's entirely possible that virtually *any* animal could do what we humans do, given appropriate cognitive interfaces (physically appropriate, enabling language systems) and physical prostheses to allow them to *manipulate* the environment as we do. Moreover they'd have to be *socially* integrated and given true social agency -- something we haven't even done for all the members of our *human* society(!)

I heard somewhere once that *all* animals are materialists, meaning that they have to rationally maneuver within the physical environment, just as we all do. In that way animals don't have the luxury of creating artifices of bullshit, like deities or abstract philosophies.

But, regarding art and cultural products, it could just be that humanity is far more *enabled* -- rather than "willing" -- to accomplish these feats. I recall that dogs will dig arbitrary patterns of holes in the sand if left to their own volition at the beach. (Etc.)

My position on all of this is at post #20:





[W]e might even entertain the idea of *rescuing* *all* animal life from life in the wild -- there's nothing to say that the struggle for survival in the wilderness is *exactly how* animals *should* live -- perhaps we might find ways to ensure food supplies *everywhere*, eliminating the need for *all* predation and life-extinction for the sake of nutrition.

In its place we might develop ways in which to network *all* sentient life to the Internet (and, ultimately, to RevLeft -- mmmbwahahahahahaha...!), giving them their entire lives in leisure (and/or social productivity of some sort).