Eco-terrorism: There's No Such Thing

[abbielives!]

ECO-TERRORISM: THERE'S NO SUCH THING

By Ted Rall

Property Rights Extremists Equate McMansions to 9/11 Victims

NEW YORK--The United States should not build housing. Whole neighborhoods in places like Chicago and Dayton and Oakland and Newark and Memphis are dominated by abandoned houses and apartment buildings. Ten percent of our national housing stock--more than 13 million homes, enough to put roofs over the homeless three times over--are vacant year-round. So why do we let developers bulldoze fields and forests to put up soulless monstrosities?

Several "model houses" at a development bearing the typically atrocious name of "Quinn's Crossing at Yarrowbay Communities" at the edge of Seattle's creeping suburban sprawl went up in flames, apparently torched by radical environmentalists. I had two reactions. First, I was reminded of my wonder that such things happen so infrequently.

Then I laughed. I wasn't alone. Time magazine bemoaned "a notable lack of sympathy for the fate of the homes" among residents of Washington state.

Quinn's Crossing, says its website, was "dedicated to the ethos of putting the earth first." In this case, putting Mother Earth "first" led the developers in "energy efficient" 4,500-square-feet McMansions. "The houses are out in the middle of nowhere, on land that used to be occupied by beaver dams and environmentally sensitive wetlands; the site sits at the headwaters of Bear Creek, where endangered chinook salmon spawn," reported Erica C. Barnett for the Seattle weekly newspaper The Stranger. "The houses, and their polluting septic systems, also sit atop an aquifer, which provides drinking water for the area's Cross Valley Water District."

4,500 square feet? My last Manhattan apartment had 725. Visitors (New Yorkers, most of whom live in even tighter quarters) cooed over how big it was. The house in which I grew up had 1,000; it was designed for a nuclear family of four.

What galled ELF was the developers' attempt to pass off self-indulgent, gargantuan McMansions as ecologically friendly. "The builders heavily promoted the 'built green' concept and pointed out that the homes were smaller than the 10,000-square-foot houses on previous Street of Dreams tours," reported The Los Angeles Times.

Barnett's story asked: "Were the Terrorists Right?" She noted: "An energy-efficient mansion will never use less energy than even a large urban apartment."

Right or wrong, they're not terrorists.

The feds say they are. They call Earth Liberation Front, the loose-knit "group" that took responsibility for the blazes in unincorporated Snohomish County, the biggest threat to mom, freedom, apple pie and three-minute pop songs since the Soviet Union closed shop. Six months before 9/11, shortly before the famous "Bin Laden Wants to Kick Our Ass Six Ways to Sunday" memo, the FBI went so far as to list the ELF as a federally designated terrorist organization. Like Al Qaeda.

Terrorism--you can look it up--involves killing people. Hijacking a plane and flying it into a building is terrorism. Destroying property--property that, for the most part, made the world a worse place--is not.

ELF's goal of "inflict[ing] maximum economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment" has inspired people to set fire to SUVs at a New Mexico car dealership, Hummers in California, and a Vail ski lodge whose construction threatened the lynx, an endangered species. Damage to the Colorado ski project amounted to $12 million.

ELF members are vandals. They're arsonists. But they aren't terrorists.

ELF demands that its adherents "take all necessary precautions against harming any animal--human and non-human." Although it could happen someday, no one has ever been killed or hurt in an ELF action. Equating the burning of a Hummer to blowing up a child exposes our society's grotesque overemphasis on the "right" of property owners to do whatever they want. The word "eco-terrorism" is an insult to the human victims of real terrorism, including those of 9/11.

The closest ELF's critics come to landing a punch is pointing out that fires send crud into the atmosphere. "This is releasing more carbon into the air than they ever would have by building the houses," the listing agent for one of the destroyed "rural cluster development" houses told The New York Times. Newsweek asked: "If their cause is to save the environment, how does burning houses, and thereby releasing carbon and toxins into the atmosphere, help achieve that goal?"

Eye-roll alert: A house fire releases air pollution once. A family living in a house does it day after day for decades. Anyway, why are builders making houses out of toxins?

Property rights extremists raised the same point after ELF set fire to 20 Hummer H2s at a California car dealership in 2004. "There's a lot more pollutants from the fire than the vehicles would pollute during their lifetime," said the West Covina fire marshal. Even if that were true, he forgot where those gas guzzlers would have eventually ended up: in landfills, their nasty chemicals seeping into the ground.

"Think of all the resources those fires wasted," moaned Seattle Times columnist Jerry Large. He explained that lawful means--petitions, politely worded letters to the editor, speaking at public hearings--are the proper way to take a stand against the destruction of the environment. "The development where this latest arson took place, situated atop the area's water supply, has been challenged by other groups, using negotiation and the law," he says approvingly. That's true. The local zoning board heard from hundreds of opponents of Quinn's Crossing before voting, 4 to 1, in favor.

Challenged, yes. But not successfully.

(Ted Rall is the author of the book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20080311/cm_ucru/ecoterrorismtheresnosuchthing&itemid=20080
3120709420.0824598

[RedDawn]

Oh, that was probably the most concise and best one about the Street of Dreams yet.

I still don't endorse the ELF though. Heart is in the right place, but tactically, they are wrong.

[Bilan]

Oh, that was probably the most concise and best one about the Street of Dreams yet.

I still don't endorse the ELF though. Heart is in the right place, but tactically, they are wrong.

yes, and no.
Their tactics, albeit unnecessarily violent in some circumstances, do get things done, do they not?

The combination of tactics by groups like the ELF and Earth First! do seem to get things done for them.

[black magick hustla]

lol some ELF kids blew up some of my college facilities in 1999. Needless, to say today there are facing felony charges.

To be honest I think it they are dumbfucks, no "heart in the right place" nonsense. I wouldnt wish them 20 years in jail though.

[Vanguard1917]

I still don't endorse the ELF though. Heart is in the right place, but tactically, they are wrong.

Yeah, hearts are definitely in the right place. An example is when Earth First (the organisation whose members went on to form the ELF) supported AIDS:

'If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS… the possible benefits of this to the environment are staggering… just as the Plague contributed to the demise of feudalism, AIDS has the potential to end industrialism.'

They supported malaria in Africa:

'Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere.'

They argued that famine in Ethiopia is less tragic than the death of 'other creatures':

'An individual human life has no more intrinsic value than does an individual Grizzly Bear life. Human suffering resulting from drought and famine in Ethiopia is tragic, yes, but the destruction there of other creatures and habitat is even more tragic.'

They make the Nazis (who were also militant misanthropists and eco-worriers) look pretty moderate. Thank god they're marginal nutcases who no one takes seriously.

[careyprice31]

"Eco-terrorism: There's No Such Thing "

Eco terrorism does indeed exist, there is evidence that earth first and PETA use acts of terror against people to further their cause.

I myself dont personally believe in it. If you hurt people you are hurting the environment. We are a part of the earth and the environment and all it has. If you hurt humans, you are hurting the environment and are therefore being hypocritical not to mention it is evil.

[apathy maybe]

Vanguard1917 putting up strawmen, misrepresenting issues and generally being ignorant on RevLeft since 2005.

[Dimentio]

The quality of abandoned housing probably makes it unsuitable for living.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

yes, and no.
Their tactics, albeit unnecessarily violent in some circumstances, do get things done, do they not?

No they don't. In spite of actions like these, cheaply built housing is still springing up like mushrooms to be sold at exorbitant prices.

The downturn of the economy is much more likely to reduce if not halt the building of such developments.


The combination of tactics by groups like the ELF and Earth First! do seem to get things done for them.

No they don't. Despite torching SUVs, they are still being built and sold. Despite threatening scientists and destroying labs, animal testing still goes on.

When a tiny minority does something extreme in the name of an extreme ideology, one should not be surprised if that minority gets called terrorists.

Not only do their tactics manifestly do not work, they are promoting an unpopular ideology that violent tactics serve only to further estrange that ideology from the general population.


Vanguard1917 putting up strawmen, misrepresenting issues and generally being ignorant on RevLeft since 2005.

Why are you defending these idiots? They're animal liberationists. not anarchists. And even if they were anarchists, their ideology is shit.

[abbielives!]

No they don't. In spite of actions like these, cheaply built housing is still springing up like mushrooms to be sold at exorbitant prices.

The downturn of the economy is much more likely to reduce if not halt the building of such developments.


No they don't. Despite torching SUVs, they are still being built and sold. Despite threatening scientists and destroying labs, animal testing still goes on.

When a tiny minority does something extreme in the name of an extreme ideology, one should not be surprised if that minority gets called terrorists.

Not only do their tactics manifestly do not work, they are promoting an unpopular ideology that violent tactics serve only to further estrange that ideology from the general population.



no single action or even a bunch of actions will stop houses and from being built.
what would you suggest then?

[abbielives!]

"Eco-terrorism: There's No Such Thing "

Eco terrorism does indeed exist, there is evidence that earth first and PETA use acts of terror against people to further their cause.

I myself dont personally believe in it. If you hurt people you are hurting the environment. We are a part of the earth and the environment and all it has. If you hurt humans, you are hurting the environment and are therefore being hypocritical not to mention it is evil.

Part of the ELF/ALF guidelines is not causing harm to life.

[abbielives!]

The quality of abandoned housing probably makes it unsuitable for living.

houses can be fixed.

[abbielives!]

Vanguard1917: the views expressed in the earth first journal don't necessarily reflect the view of earth first members, i KNOW THIS MAY BE HARD FOR A LENINIST TO UNDERSTAND because you papers present the party line rather than the opinion of individuals.:rolleyes:

[apathy maybe]

Why are you defending these idiots? They're animal liberationists. not anarchists. And even if they were anarchists, their ideology is shit.
I haven't yet, I just attacked the stupidity of Vanguard1917's post. Why are you defending that idiot?

On ELF, I think I've said it before, I'm not going to condemn attacks on capitalism and the state. ELF attacks capitalist developments that they consider to be harmful to the environment. Well, I'm not going to say that they shouldn't do that.

So, yeah, I'm sure as hell not condemning them. Does that mean I'm defending them? In a way I guess it does. Do I care? Not really, this discussion is old, I've had it too many times before to care.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

no single action or even a bunch of actions will stop houses and from being built.

So why do it?


what would you suggest then?That's not up to me. There are much more pressing concerns than the housing bubble, which is going to burst anyway.


Part of the ELF/ALF guidelines is not causing harm to life.Doesn't stop animal liberationist individuals from threatening, harassing and intimidating scientists. Intimidation is a terrorist tactic.


houses can be fixed.Most of the houses being built are pieces of shit that fall apart in 20-30 years anyway. Regardless, for the ELF/ALF, this isn't about providing human beings with housing, that's just rhetorical icing sugar on the propaganda cake. It's about "man" encroaching on "nature's domain" and similar romanticist bullshit.


Vanguard1917: the views expressed in the earth first journal don't necessarily reflect the view of earth first members, i KNOW THIS MAY BE HARD FOR A LENINIST TO UNDERSTAND because you papers present the party line rather than the opinion of individuals.The presented quotes are a natural consequence of valuing animal life over human life.


I haven't yet, I just attacked the stupidity of Vanguard1917's post. Why are you defending that idiot?

Because you accused him of all sorts of things without actually backing up your statements. VG1917's quoted statements are not particular to the individual that stated them - as I said above, they are a natural consequence of the worldview of the whole movement.

As for the ELF/ALF's actions, they chose to set up an "organisation" if you can call it that, whereby anyone with a grudge can carry some vaguely "environmentally motivated" vandalism and claim responsibility in the name of ALF/ELF. So don't be surprised if the result is mess of contradiction with condemnable actions. Some ELF/ALF "members" chose to threaten and intimidate scientists, and because they claim to be doing it in the name of said organisation, to most people the ELF/ALF will appear to be a bunch of barbarians.

And if someone says they're a part of ELF/ALF, who am I to say otherwise?

[Comrade Rage]

I still don't endorse the ELF though. Heart is in the right place, but tactically, they are wrong.I endorse their tactics, but not there politics.


So why do it?Probably to cost them more money. Don't underestimate the value in that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I endorse their tactics, but not there politics.

Probably to cost them more money. Don't underestimate the value in that.

Even in the event that their insurance doesn't cover it, it's a drop in the bucket. Property developers are stinking rich.

[RedDawn]

They just got a $7 million dollar insurance payout to companies whose houses have not sold yet.

This was last years models, if ELF did do it, why didn't they bomb the 2008 models?

Anyway, this just puts a larger gap between revolutionary movements and the working class.

[Vanguard1917]

I haven't yet, I just attacked the stupidity of Vanguard1917's post. Why are you defending that idiot?



Calm down, little lass. It's OK.



On ELF, I think I've said it before, I'm not going to condemn attacks on capitalism and the state.


Ha, don't make me laugh. A handful of tree-huggers throwing eco-tantrums?

[apathy maybe]

And if someone says they're a part of ELF/ALF, who am I to say otherwise?
Well exactly. That is the whole point, there is no "organisation", there is just a name. (I'm only talking about ELF here, I know fuck all about the history of the ALF.)

I could go around firebombing stuff (or whatever) and post communiques claiming it to be from the Communist Party or whatever. They would then deny this, point to the various things were they condemn this stuff and open their member books to the police. Sort of defeats the purpose of having "anonymous and autonomous individuals or cells" doesn't it, if such things can happen.

Anyway, there is no organisation, there is just a name. You join by carrying out actions and leaving the ELF name or by claiming an action on behalf of the ELF. That's all there is to it.


And yes, the ELF don't hurt people ("To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and nonhuman." http://www.satyamag.com/mar04/elf.html ). They do damage property, but I'm not going to condemn that, I do that. It isn't the "working class's" property that is being damaged, by property belonging to capitalists, and unless you support capitalism, and the system of law and police that enforces the capitalist's "right" to own property, you shouldn't be condemning that either. Especially when it is not taken in the name of your organisation.



Thank god they're marginal nutcases who no one takes seriously.
Well, you are wrong (and not for the first time).

"Persons who conduct this type of activity are going to spend a long time in jail and they should understand that, regardless of the motive," FBI Director Robert Mueller said.

During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars.
(Read the whole thing for a lot of interesting commentary from the FBI on ELF/ALF.)

The "Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc." takes them seriously too. http://prfamerica.org/EarthLiberationFrontNo1onFBIList.html

You see, the ELF and the ALF are taken seriously, they are a threat to capitalism (not a huge one, but more so then say a lot of random Trot parties).

And part of the reason for that, (to continue what I was saying above), is because they are decentralised, autonomous etc. Because if they had a members list it would be shit easy for the police to look it over...

So while they might not be revolutionary or "working class" (whatever that means...), they are dangerous to capitalist interests.


And on the quotes CapitalistSupporter1917 provided, they mean fuck all. They are the words of one or two people in an organisation from which the ELF were originally formed, and they are over 20 years old. Does every supporter or activist in the ELF or Earth First! support those quotes? I doubt it, can I find out? No. And neither can FuckOff1917. Which is why it is so fucking stupid to continue to put up the same tired idiocy.

[Vanguard1917]

You see, the ELF and the ALF are taken seriously, they are a threat to capitalism


Actually, i meant that they aren't taken seriously by people in general.

And being considered as a 'serious terrorist threat' does not mean that you're a 'threat to capitalism'. A few handfuls of Islamic fundies are taken as a 'serious terrorist threat' in Britain - a threat to property as well as human life. But no one would seriously suggest that they're a 'threat to capitalism' because of that.



And on the quotes CapitalistSupporter1917 provided, they mean fuck all. They are the words of one or two people in an organisation from which the ELF were originally formed


Two of the quotes that i posted are from Dave Foreman, who was not just anyone in Earth First, but the founder of the organisation.

A deep and despicable anti-human sentiment has run through the whole of Earth First, especially its leadership:

John Davis, the editor of the Earth First Journal, put it like this:

'Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.'

While you may indeed agree with the above statement by one of Earth First's leading members, it is clear to the rest of us that this organisation is motivated by a deep hatred of humanity.

[apathy maybe]

Actually, i meant that they aren't taken seriously by people in general.
Right, sure. I agree.
But they are taken seriously by some people, including the FBI.

As for you quotes, I don't care where you got the from, unless you can provide evidence that the general membership of Earth First or the ELF agree with those statements, then I suggest that you should not use them in attacks against these organisations. Of course, you don't care about intellectual honesty, so I don't know why I'm bothering...

And again, Earth First does not equal the ELF.


Finally, "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
And I agree. Of course, I'll say that I'm assuming that 'John Davis' is talking in an existential sense. If you ask the universe, which is more important, humans or slugs, it won't answer. That's is how much worth humans are.

If you are talking about subjective value though, of course humans are "worth more", then slugs. But you didn't provide any evidence that John Davis was talking in any manner other then as an objective statement regarding the universe as a whole, or the planet specifically.

[Vanguard1917]

As for you quotes, I don't care where you got the from, unless you can provide evidence that the general membership of Earth First or the ELF agree with those statements


No, I haven't surveyed the whole organisation (or whatever they call themselves). The evidence is that leading individuals in Earth First made those statement. Two of the quotes are from Earth First founder Dave Foreman, and the third (the one about AIDS being a good thing) was from an official Earth First newsletter.

The statement that i quoted in my last post was made by the editor of the Earth First Journal - John Davis.



Of course, I'll say that I'm assuming that 'John Davis' is talking in an existential sense. If you ask the universe, which is more important, humans or slugs, it won't answer. That's is how much worth humans are.


Yeah, whatever that means. Meanwhile, here's another one by John Davis (editor of the Earth First Journal):

'I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.'

Two more by Earth First founder Dave Foreman:

'We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.'

This is one of my faves:

'Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.'



And I agree.


I know you do.

For us sane people, though, human life is immeasurably more valuable than that of slugs.

[careyprice31]

human life is immeasurably more valuable than that of slugs.

Only from a human perspective, and what humans think is not necessarily what is true biological reality.

and by the way, Im not insane.





but ok, seriously, I have no idea what this vanguard fellow got against environmentalism and protecting the environment.

He seems to never miss an opportunity to condemn it, even putting a suv in his avi.

why do he have issues.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Only from a human perspective, and what humans think is not necessarily what is true biological reality.

The "human perspective" is the only perspective that truly matters.


but ok, seriously, I have no idea what this vanguard fellow got against environmentalism and protecting the environment.

He seems to never miss an opportunity to condemn it, even putting a suv in his avi.

why do he have issues.Opposing groups like ELF/ALF and Earth First! is not the same as opposing environmentalism.


As for you quotes, I don't care where you got the from, unless you can provide evidence that the general membership of Earth First or the ELF agree with those statements, then I suggest that you should not use them in attacks against these organisations. Of course, you don't care about intellectual honesty, so I don't know why I'm bothering...

The quotes are indicative of the general mindset and ideology of groups like ELF et al. It's not surprising that prominent members of such groups will make statements like that. The words and actions of those who claim to be part of ELF et al consistently agree that "nature" is worth more than the whole of humanity. For fuck's sake, one of them is called "Earth First!".

[bcbm]

Opposing groups like ELF/ALF and Earth First! is not the same as opposing environmentalism.

Vanguard1917 was the one being referenced, and we all know he gets his panties in a twist about environmentalists of any sort.

[abbielives!]

So why do it?

That's not up to me. There are much more pressing concerns than the housing bubble, which is going to burst anyway.

Doesn't stop animal liberationist individuals from threatening, harassing and intimidating scientists. Intimidation is a terrorist tactic.

Most of the houses being built are pieces of shit that fall apart in 20-30 years anyway. Regardless, for the ELF/ALF, this isn't about providing human beings with housing, that's just rhetorical icing sugar on the propaganda cake. It's about "man" encroaching on "nature's domain" and similar romanticist bullshit.

The presented quotes are a natural consequence of valuing animal life over human life.


As for the ELF/ALF's actions, they chose to set up an "organisation" if you can call it that, whereby anyone with a grudge can carry some vaguely "environmentally motivated" vandalism and claim responsibility in the name of ALF/ELF. So don't be surprised if the result is mess of contradiction with condemnable actions. Some ELF/ALF "members" chose to threaten and intimidate scientists, and because they claim to be doing it in the name of said organisation, to most people the ELF/ALF will appear to be a bunch of barbarians.

And if someone says they're a part of ELF/ALF, who am I to say otherwise?

action is nessisary to protect the enviroment and humanity.
Intimidation is a terrorist tactic? would you condemn attacking scabs then?
(in any case I don't belive in animal 'rights', here i am reffering to the ELF)
even if some of the actions they carry out are "condemnable" that doesn't mean you should throw the group out as a whole, I am sure there are many groups who you support despite their having done things you don't like.

[abbielives!]

Two of the quotes that i posted are from Dave Foreman, who was not just anyone in Earth First, but the founder of the organisation.



if you knew anything at all about earth first, you would know that Foreman left the organization because of it's emerging anti-capitalist stance (see the last chapter in 'confessions of an eco-warrior' )

[Vanguard1917]

if you knew anything at all about earth first, you would know that Foreman left the organization


Yes, i'm aware of this. He has left the organisation - but this has not meant that the views he upholds have left with him. Earth First continues to uphold the despicable and misanthropic views of 'deep ecology'.

From the 'about ef!' section of the Earth First Journal website:

'Guided by a philosophy of deep ecology, Earth First! does not accept a human-centered worldview of "nature for people's sake."'

And:

'Meanwhile, scientists have confirmed what indigenous cultures have taught for thousands of years: all forms of life are vitally connected. Removing even a single strand from the web of life produces a widening ripple of catastrophe. On a more spiritual level, Earth First!ers under stand that we can never be the healthy humans that we were meant to be in a world without wilderness, clean air and the howling of wolves under the moon.'

http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/section.php?id=1

This is definately not an organisation that Marxists and other genuine anti-capitalists should have any sympathy for.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

action is nessisary to protect the enviroment and humanity.

But if nothing comes of such action, and the action itself is motivated by a flawed ideology, then what is the point of that action?


Intimidation is a terrorist tactic? would you condemn attacking scabs then? Scabs deserve what they get. Scientists working to increase the sum total of human knowledge deserve praise, not intimidation.


(in any case I don't belive in animal 'rights', here i am reffering to the ELF)Both organisations place "nature" before human beings.


even if some of the actions they carry out are "condemnable" that doesn't mean you should throw the group out as a whole, I am sure there are many groups who you support despite their having done things you don't like.Like what, pray?

[ellipsis]

this is all very interesting, I recently posted the same article on my blog. To me it comes down to this, at their core ALF/ELF's missions are contrary to the capitalist project. Many of their members and many animal liberationists in general are part of other radical social movements. For a "national liberationist" such as myself, I see them as allies (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) and good people to learn from. As for them being taken serious, within the scientific/academic community, there is a genuine fear of these people and they are considered terrorists and equated to the KKK. Consider the recent animal liberation conference at Hampshire College, the keynote speaker of which was prominent animal liberation spokesperson Jerry Valsek(sp?). Convicted "terrorist" Peter Young, formerly of ALF spoke for his second time at the college for the conference. The entire Natural Science department convinced the administration that there would be violence and possible acts of terror committed by lawless fugitives. The conference did go on but Valsek was forced to sleep off campus. There was a not so undercover FBI agent who attended the event, and others lurking around the campus. I attended the event and you can find my reports on the Peter young lecture (http://therevolutionscript.blogspot.com/2007/11/peter-young-speaks-on-guerrilla-private.html) and the conference in general (http://therevolutionscript.blogspot.com/2007/11/animal-liberation-conference-part-15.html) on my blog. I found the Peter Young lecture to be relevant to my struggle as well as many others, regardless of methodology.

the conference's webpages, which chronicles their battle to freely and peacefully assemble and enage in acts of free speech can be found here (http://halaconference.blogspot.com/)

[Wanted Man]

On a more spiritual level, Earth First!ers under stand that we can never be the healthy humans that we were meant to be in a world without wilderness, clean air and the howling of wolves under the moon.'
Interesting. Maybe these people should go into the wilderness to listen to the howling wolves. And get eaten by them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Being against capitalism is not reason enough to support the "animal rights" and "Earth First!" types. their problem is ultimately with industrial civilisation - you can bet your arse these loons would be attacking developments in industrial communist society as well.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is the same position taken by the US administration, and look where it's led them - chances are good that sooner or later, the "enemy of the enemy" turns into your enemy.

[abbielives!]

But if nothing comes of such action, and the action itself is motivated by a flawed ideology, then what is the point of that action?

Scabs deserve what they get. Scientists working to increase the sum total of human knowledge deserve praise, not intimidation.

Both organisations place "nature" before human beings.

Like what, pray?

you dont have to be a deep ecologist to support monkeywrenching, the only real way to have a sustainable society is to abolish capitalism (exponental growth conflicts with a finite planet) the purpose of action now is to limit the depredations commited. if you standard for action is does it stop SUVS from being produced than any action is 'ineffective'. reshearch such as GMO stuff needs to be stopped.
once again the principles of the ELF are:

1. To inflict maximum economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment.

2. To reveal to, and to educate the public about the atrocities committed against the earth and all species that populate it.

3. To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal - human and non-human.

nowhere does it say you must put animals before humans.

like for example you could have supported the WW2 but been against the nuclear weapons used on Japan, the firebombing of tokyo, dresden, etc..

the same principle applies to the ELF.

[Vanguard1917]

There are progressive criticisms of capitalist society and there are reactionary "criticisms" of capitalist society. The "criticisms" espoused by groups like Earth First and ELF definately fall into the latter category.

The important thing is not so much what you are against, but what you are for. Marxists and other progressives share none of the core aspirations of these "deep green" eco-worriers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you dont have to be a deep ecologist to support monkeywrenching, the only real way to have a sustainable society is to abolish capitalism (exponental growth conflicts with a finite planet) the purpose of action now is to limit the depredations commited.

Monkeywrenching won't abolish capitalism, by simple virtue of the fact that only a handful of tree-hugging loons do it.

I'm amused by your claim that monkeywrenching performed by well-off middle class kids in the first world somehow offsets the massive damage done by global capitalism in the third world. But if that delusion comforts you, then who am I to disabuse you of that inane notion?


if you standard for action is does it stop SUVS from being produced than any action is 'ineffective'.

I was using SUVs as an example. I suggest you look at how practices that used to be common that are now rare (for example use of CFCs), and how that situation came about. It certainly wasn't by bombing foam factories.

London used to be a smoggy city, experiencing pea-soupers that damaged the health of all that breathed the air. Now that is no longer the case. What happened? legislation was passed, the Clean Air Act of 1956 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956 ) - this and other improvements repudiate the radical environmentalist claims that meaningful changes can only happen with direct action.

In other words, the ruling class is more than capable taking environmentalism in it's stride.


reshearch such as GMO stuff needs to be stopped.

No it certainly does not, the total opposite in fact - although we currently produce enough food to feed everyone more than twice over, what with growing population and potential loss of arable land due to the effects of climate change, that may not be the case forever. Egregious examples of GM technology, for example terminator seeds, are an indictment of capitalism, not genetically modified organisms - it was the profit motive which produceed the drive for terminator seeds.


once again the principles of the ELF are:

1. To inflict maximum economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment.

2. To reveal to, and to educate the public about the atrocities committed against the earth and all species that populate it.

3. To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal - human and non-human.

Principles are good and all, but nothing actually binds members of the ELF to them.


nowhere does it say you must put animals before humans.

like for example you could have supported the WW2 but been against the nuclear weapons used on Japan, the firebombing of tokyo, dresden, etc..

the same principle applies to the ELF.

I would say opposing vivisection and GM crops is putting the natural world before humans, regardless of what you think otherwise.

[Vanguard1917]

putting the natural world before humans


Indeed. And this is the conduct, not of a few insignificant "deep green" nutjobs, but of Western governments. After all, it wasn't a tiny minority of loony tree-huggers who passed restrictions on the use of GM crops - it was Western governments. It wasn't a few smelly hippies who banned DDT - it was the US state.

Environmentalism is part of ruling class ideology. Some eco-worriers like to fantasise about being subversive and radical, but in reality they merely represent - sometimes in militant form - the wider reaction which is taking place in mainstream bourgeois politics.

[ellipsis]

The arguement that "it is only a few people, they will never get anything done" is the same logic that people use against revolution and leftist activism in general. that kind of defeatist attitude gets one nowhere. Its like i always say "you can do something and maybe nothing will come of it OR you can do nothing which will definitely result in nothing happening."

[bcbm]

Monkeywrenching won't abolish capitalism, by simple virtue of the fact that only a handful of tree-hugging loons do it.

It won't abolish capitalism, but it isn't just tree-hugging loons who do it. Monkeywrenching is often performed against capitalist developments when those developments threaten the class interests of a particular group. Its been used by everyone from small farmers and the indigenous to industrial workers.


I'm amused by your claim that monkeywrenching performed by well-off middle class kids in the first world somehow offsets the massive damage done by global capitalism in the third world. But if that delusion comforts you, then who am I to disabuse you of that inane notion?

There is monkeywrenching in the third world as well, and it generally follows from what I describe above.

[abbielives!]

Monkeywrenching won't abolish capitalism, by simple virtue of the fact that only a handful of tree-hugging loons do it.

I'm amused by your claim that monkeywrenching performed by well-off middle class kids in the first world somehow offsets the massive damage done by global capitalism in the third world. But if that delusion comforts you, then who am I to disabuse you of that inane notion?

I was using SUVs as an example. I suggest you look at how practices that used to be common that are now rare (for example use of CFCs), and how that situation came about. It certainly wasn't by bombing foam factories.

London used to be a smoggy city, experiencing pea-soupers that damaged the health of all that breathed the air. Now that is no longer the case. What happened? legislation was passed, the Clean Air Act of 1956 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956 ) - this and other improvements repudiate the radical environmentalist claims that meaningful changes can only happen with direct action.

In other words, the ruling class is more than capable taking environmentalism in it's stride.

No it certainly does not, the total opposite in fact - although we currently produce enough food to feed everyone more than twice over, what with growing population and potential loss of arable land due to the effects of climate change, that may not be the case forever. Egregious examples of GM technology, for example terminator seeds, are an indictment of capitalism, not genetically modified organisms - it was the profit motive which produceed the drive for terminator seeds.

Principles are good and all, but nothing actually binds members of the ELF to them.

I would say opposing vivisection and GM crops is putting the natural world before humans, regardless of what you think otherwise.

the purpose of monkeywrenching is to limit the depredations of capital not over throw it and paralells the use of sabotage in the labor movement(it is tatic not a strategy), it is used by people all over the world, famers in India torch GMO crops occasionally. saying the clean air act is proof that "the ruling class is more than capable taking environmentalism in it's stride" is like saying minimum wage laws mean that poverty can be solved within the system. (who knew you were a social democrat) Im pretty much wasting my time your just another Marxist making himself irrelevent by refusing to adapt his ideology to the times:lol:

[careyprice31]

"Both organisations place "nature" before human beings"

I really dont understand organizations like these.

Place nature before humans?

Thats too weird, because humans ARE nature. We are a part of nature.

We all live on earth and are just as much a part of it.

If they place non humans above humans they are still hurting nature because we are part of that nature.

[Vanguard1917]

Thats too weird, because humans ARE nature. We are a part of nature.

We all live on earth and are just as much a part of it.

If they place non humans above humans they are still hurting nature because we are part of that nature.


Humans are not just part of nature - they are the sovereigns of nature. According to Marxism, the goal of human liberation entails mastering nature and subjecting it to the will of humanity.

Your idea of people as just another part of nature is completely opposed to the Marxist position.

[careyprice31]

Humans are not just part of nature - they are the sovereigns of nature. According to Marxism, the goal of human liberation entails mastering nature and subjecting it to the will of humanity.

Your idea of people as just another part of nature is completely opposed to the Marxist position.

I know this position was taken by Lenin, Stalin, Lysenko and some of their predecessors such as Nechayev, Chernyshevsky, Tkachev, and so on, about conquering and mastering nature and subjecting it to the will of humanity.

Thats what Lysenkoism was about.

IU do not know if Marx himself took that position, but since you brought it up, I would love to know if he did or not.

I do not think that humans are JUST part of nature, we arent JUST part of nature. We do live outside of nature as well and we have the abilities to affect it and shape our planet in ways no other species has. That would put us outside of nature as well. I meant that we do share the planet with nature, and we arose from nature, and we are part of it.

But we are also outside of it as well.

[Vanguard1917]

IU do not know if Marx himself took that position, but since you brought it up, I would love to know if he did or not.

Yes, both Marx and Engels believed that humanity cannot be free until it subordinates nature to its will. This is in fact the basis of the Marxism's materialism: for man to be free, he has to be in conscious control of his material surroundings, of which nature is a part. And it is for this very reason that Marxists oppose capitalism - because it stands in the way of human beings being the master of their material circumstances.

Engels puts it like this:


'With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then for the first time man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature because he has now become master of his own social organisation. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face to face with man as laws of nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organisation, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the humanity's leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.'
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm

[thewoodcutter]

sorry, but we dont control nature. we can react to nature (develop a new anti-biotic to combat disease) and we can influence nature to a degree (human induced climate change, agriculture), but either way we are still just operating within a larger system.

maybe i just dont understand exactly what you mean by 'sovereigns of nature'. it conjures up images of people with whips lashing at chained animals or something. but
we should certainly view nature from a utilitarian viewpoint, ie we need a healthy ecosystem to provide us with clean air and drinking water so we endeavour to keep it healthy. we need healthy soils to grow crops, so we keep our soils healthy. i dont see what the controversy is, but i get the picture that many people here simply dont know enough about ecology or that they just like pavement more than grass.

[ellipsis]

[QUOTE=thewoodcutter;1101167}i dont see what the controversy is, but i get the picture that many people here simply dont know enough about ecology or that they just like pavement more than grass.[/QUOTE]

Nor do I see why this is such a hotly debated topic. this whole harnessing nature idea of Marx and Engles, etc. is kinda out dated. They didn't really understand ecology, nobody in the mid 19th century understood ecology. Even taking that idea seriously, there are many, many ways that we can peacefully and productively co-exist with "nature" and non-human animals. Unfortunately doing so would be counter to the Capitalist project.
As for the comment enemy of my enemy turning around to bite me in the ass, in this case it doesn't make any sense. If leftist radicals start turning on each other, it will most likely be due to COINTELPRO.

[careyprice31]

"sorry, but we dont control nature. we can react to nature (develop a new anti-biotic to combat disease) and we can influence nature to a degree (human induced climate change, agriculture), but either way we are still just operating within a larger system.

maybe i just dont understand exactly what you mean by 'sovereigns of nature'. it conjures up images of people with whips lashing at chained animals or something. but
we should certainly view nature from a utilitarian viewpoint, ie we need a healthy ecosystem to provide us with clean air and drinking water so we endeavour to keep it healthy. we need healthy soils to grow crops, so we keep our soils healthy. i dont see what the controversy is, but i get the picture that many people here simply dont know enough about ecology or that they just like pavement more than grass."

There are things about nature that are outside our control.

The leaders of the ussr learned that lesson painfully through the failures of lysenkoism etc, that set russia back a lot in the scientific field.

And people are learning that lesson painfully everyday. With the domestic dog, for example, they expect the dog to behave a certain way, and when he doesnt and he bites someone, acting in a manner due to the fact of his wild origins, the dog is killed.

People want to show they are masters over nature. But it just doesnt work that way.

I have studied these things for decades. Have always been interested in science.

I do not understand why, Vanguard, you get your tail in a twist everytime environmentalism is mentioned, I would love to know why and to understand you.

As we are the only species able to transform the earth in such a revolutionary way, even destroy it in a matter of days, we have great power, and with that power comes great responsibility.

We have a duty to take it upon ourselves to try and understand nature and the environment and stop thinking we have complete control over it and are the sovereigns and everything is subservient to us, because it isn't.

[Vanguard1917]

I do not understand why, Vanguard, you get your tail in a twist everytime environmentalism is mentioned, I would love to know why and to understand you.

I'm against environmentalism because it is a reactionary bourgeois ideology. See this thread if you're interested in some of my arguments: http://www.revleft.com/vb/against-global-warming-t72867/index.html


As we are the only species able to transform the earth in such a revolutionary way, even destroy it in a matter of days, we have great power, and with that power comes great responsibility.

We have a duty to take it upon ourselves to try and understand nature and the environment and stop thinking we have complete control over it and are the sovereigns and everything is subservient to us, because it isn't.

We don't have full control over it. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to have. You have argued elsewhere that human beings should not be allowed to subordinate nature to its will.

[careyprice31]

I'm against environmentalism because it is a reactionary bourgeois ideology. See this thread if you're interested in some of my arguments: http://www.revleft.com/vb/against-global-warming-t72867/index.html



.

Ok. Reading them now, your arguements. thanks.

I've been fascinated by you actually since I first heard about you from Serpent. Ive always been fascinated with differences, things and beliefs that differ from my own.
And the fact that you are so against environmentalism, well, I have never met someone so against it as you are. I find that fascinating.

[careyprice31]

After taking the time to read through your debate with Zurdito, I have to say, Vanguard,

I understand where you come from, I do.

But I also agree with Zurdito.

I agree with you that some people may just jump on the environmentalist green bandwagon because it is profitable to do so and they'll get benefits without necessarily doing the research and things.

and i have had the thought, that some charities, while calling on people to donate to fight for this or that protection of a certain environmental thing, may not actually do it because they are getting paid. It is profitable to be green. It brings benefits. Some may just do it without even knowing really wtf they are at. And I see that is some of your beef with environmentalists. I know its true and many do that. I really do know its true. Some are just not honorable and sincere.

I also have to agree that yes people criticized capitalism for giving too little to help the poorer people with their technology and their opwn development. Then some environmentalist comes along and says, you have to cut back because you will hurt the earth.

I understand where you come from. Seems to endorse what people have already criticized about capitalism. And now it would sound like they are for it Seems like a contradiction, and reactionary, doesnt it?

I totally see where you come from. To address the two main issues you introduced and the rest of the argument expands on that.

But I also see where Zurdito comes from.

I think the problem is to find a balance between your idea and Zurdito's. Because if we develop and industrialize too much, we run the risk of destroying the only planet we have to live on. But if we don't,that will hurt a large portion of the human population and therefore would be reactionary to the leftist idea.

So, my conclusion is that you both have good arguments.

And now I understand you, Vanguard. :)

I also think though that we should learn about nature and seek to understand it.

Ive done that for years. Always loved science.

Im wondering, have you ever studied animals, nature, the environment, science, biology, etc in anyway? Not to assume you havent, but I dont know you.

[Vanguard1917]

I also think though that we should learn about nature and seek to understand it.


Of course we should! We should always seek to perfect our knowledge of nature and to understand its laws - so that we can better exploit it in the interests of humanity.

[thewoodcutter]

ok, so 'complete control over nature'. does this mean we will directly control plate tectonics, evolution, radiance of the sun etc etc. is it really worth our time and energy attempting to control these things (aka nature) instead of just working with them? and how bout somebody completely describes 'sovereigns over nature' for me, because it sounds like nonsense (and also like somebody has some control issues).

[Vanguard1917]

ok, so 'complete control over nature'. does this mean we will directly control plate tectonics, evolution, radiance of the sun etc etc. is it really worth our time and energy attempting to control these things (aka nature) instead of just working with them?


'Worth our time and energy'? That's how humanity progresses - by furthering its knowledge and understanding, and thus its ability to better control and deal with, its material surroundings. As a result, today we possess greater control over our natural environment than ever before.

[black magick hustla]

Thats an overtly "enlightment" definition of human progress.

I agree that science is good blahblahblah (I am a science major), but I am concerned more with my happiness than with progress for the sake of progress.

[thewoodcutter]

so why is learning to co-exist within nature (adapt to it) less progressive than having total domination over it? both scenarios should result in increased quality of life, but one is near-impossible (again, what mechanism would you suggest for controlling plate tectonics, or wave-action, or temperature or any of the other phenomenon that occur here on earth/off earth and contribute to 'nature'?).

[Vanguard1917]

so why is learning to co-exist within nature (adapt to it) less progressive than having total domination over it?


Because when human beings were 'co-existing within nature' as just another part of nature, human life was nasty, brutish and short. It is only by learning to dominate nature and subordinate it to human interests, that human beings began to improve their existence on earth.


what mechanism would you suggest for controlling plate tectonics

We might not be able to control plate tectonics at the moment, but we can control to an extent the effect which earthquakes have on us: for example, through improved prediction methods and the construction of buildings which are able to resist seismic activity. This is something which has come about as a result of human progress, as a result of humanity making steps to learn how to control nature.

Who are you to rule out further progress?


or wave-action, or temperature

As a result of human progress and development, we are today far less vulnerable to changes in climate than ever before - especially in the developed West. When people were merely 'adapting to nature' (as you put it), they were relative to today extremely vulnerable to natural forces.



I agree that science is good blahblahblah (I am a science major), but I am concerned more with my happiness than with progress for the sake of progress.


It's not 'progress for the sake of progress'. It's progress for the sake of humanity. A progress which has, for example, increased living standards, increased life expectancy, and reduced rates of child mortality.

[thewoodcutter]

none of the examples you gave demonstrate 'dominating nature', predicting earthquakes and constructing earthquake-proof buildings is a form of ADAPTATION, and means we are co-existing with nature. and your description of hunter-gatherer peoples as living 'brutish lives' is both arrogant and offensive. you dont appreciate such a lifestyle, fine, but thats no reason to label countless cultures as 'brutish'.

[Vanguard1917]

none of the examples you gave demonstrate 'dominating nature', predicting earthquakes and constructing earthquake-proof buildings is a form of ADAPTATION


They are examples of attempts to control nature in order to provide a better living environment for humanity.



and means we are co-existing with nature. and your description of hunter-gatherer peoples as living 'brutish lives' is both arrogant and offensive. you dont appreciate such a lifestyle, fine, but thats no reason to label countless cultures as 'brutish'.


Having a life expectancy of 30 and having half of your children die before the age of 1 (which was the reality in hunter-gatherer societies) is a brutal existence by any modern standards.

[thewoodcutter]

when natural selection selects for thicker fur in a wolf population in response to a colder climate, is that adaptation or an attempt to control nature by the wolves?

when humans select shock-resistant buildings in response to a high occurrence of earthquakes, is this adaptation or an attempt to control nature?

and again, whether YOU think a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is undesirable doesnt matter. there are people who prefer such a lifestyle and for you to blanket them as 'brutish' isnt any different than europeans labeling the original inhabitants of north america as 'savage'.

and really, its been shown that many hunters lived to be over 60 (not to mention that hunter-gatherers generally have to do far less labour than agriculturalists).

[Vanguard1917]

when natural selection selects for thicker fur in a wolf population in response to a colder climate, is that adaptation or an attempt to control nature by the wolves?

when humans select shock-resistant buildings in response to a high occurrence of earthquakes, is this adaptation or an attempt to control nature?


Wolves don't make a conscious attempt to control their surroundings. Only human can do this - only we can consciously change our natural environment.


nd really, its been shown that many hunters lived to be over 60

Yes, but we're talking about life expectancy, which deals with averages. The life expentancy of hunter-gatherer societies was no more than 30.

[thewoodcutter]

wolves adapt through biology, we adapt through culture. being conscious just means that we are consciously adapting. we are successful not because we control nature, but because we are very well equipped to adapt to it.

and you ignored my other statement, i.e. the fact that you called indigenous hunter-gatherers 'brutish'.

[Vanguard1917]

wolves adapt through biology, we adapt through culture. being conscious just means that we are consciously adapting. we are successful not because we control nature, but because we are very well equipped to adapt to it.


But we don't just adapt, we consciously change our material surroundings.


and you ignored my other statement, i.e. the fact that you called indigenous hunter-gatherers 'brutish'.

I didn't ignore it. I said that their conditions of existence were, from a modern perspective, brutal.

[thewoodcutter]

hunter-gatherers are not an archaic extinct group as you would imply. do modern hunter-gatherers call themselves brutal? your views are extremely ethnocentric.

and 'changing our material surroundings' is very different from subjugating nature. if we cut down a tree, then we have changed out material surroundings, but that certainly isnt controlling nature.

[Vanguard1917]

hunter-gatherers are not an archaic extinct group as you would imply. do modern hunter-gatherers call themselves brutal? your views are extremely ethnocentric.

That there are people (however few) still living as hunter-gatherers in the 21st century is cause for concern - not celebration. These people live the way that they do mainly because they have no other choice.



and 'changing our material surroundings' is very different from subjugating nature. if we cut down a tree, then we have changed out material surroundings, but that certainly isnt controlling nature.


It is to a degree. If a society decides to cut down the trees in a given area because it wants to use the land to build houses or roads - this is an example of exercising a level of control (however modest) over nature. As is planting trees on unused land, digging a whole in the ground, filling it with water, fish and plants, in order to build a public park.

[thewoodcutter]

doesnt matter how many roads or parks we build, the point is that there will still be uncontrollable external stimuli that we have to react and adapt to. we've built roads, so what? they constantly need refurbishing as ice creates pot-holes and trees crowd the edges; nature hasn't been controlled or subjugated, just very slightly and temporarily modified. same goes for the public park, all youve done is modify a landscape, that park is acted upon by natural forces just as the previously unaltered land was.


oh, and i suppose you have talked to every hunter-gatherer in person? and how do you account for people who have decided to become hunter-gatherers after being born into agricultural/industrial societies? are they simply insane?

[Vanguard1917]

nature hasn't been controlled or subjugated

No, not completely. But it has been to an extent.



that park is acted upon by natural forces just as the previously unaltered land was.


Yes, but those natural forces no longer exist completely outside of the conscious control of people.

[thewoodcutter]

so the fish in the new pond arent being acted upon by gravity, natural selection etc? if they are, then you havent subjugated anything. digging holes and raising fish is not subjugating nature, its just moving stuff around, basic natural laws still apply to that shifted dirt.

also, im going to bed.

[Lord Testicles]

thewoodcutter: look up semantics.


Because when human beings were 'co-existing within nature' as just another part of nature, human life was nasty, brutish and short.

Also, this.

[thewoodcutter]

this isnt semantics, the idea that we control nature is an old and outdated model handed down to us from descartes. capitalists/industrialists believe they have such complete control over nature that they can act without consequence. clear-cutting vast swathes of forests, releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the air, dumping nitrates into our waterways; all of these actions obviously have negative consequences for us. but if nature is completely under control, then why would we suffer any repercussions? we need to realize that constantly fucking with nature is probably going to hurt us in the long-run, and we should change ourselves accordingly.

[Lord Testicles]

Noone said we can control nature the idea is we should strive to do so. If we were to just "let nature run it's course" we'd probably be dead right now, since nature is an indiscriminate killer.

[thewoodcutter]

i dont think anyone said we should 'let nature run its course' (whatever that entails), all im suggesting is that our technologies and actions should alter nature as little as possible because doing so is better for our survival. example: clear-cutting forests pollutes waterways with runoff, makes the land barren and infertile, and harms beneficial animal species. instead, we should use selective harvesting measures and increase recycling; in this way we have avoided the negative impacts associated with clear-cutting. this isnt about saving nature for nature's sake, its realizing that keeping natural systems intact is more beneficial to us than simply exploiting and destroying those systems.

[Lord Testicles]

I can understand wanting to minimize damage to the enviroment when we can, but why would we want to limit our use of technology to alter our enviroment when we could potentally do so much good?

[thewoodcutter]

we DONT limit our technology, we just apply it differently and develop technologies that take advantage of what nature has already developed. example: my city is located next to a giant lake that is used for grain shipping, so all the boats coming in have made our harbour an oily mess. our drinking water comes from this harbour, and requires extensive (and expensive) chemical treatments for purification. a city only an hour away however takes advantage of an enormous bog close to the city. the many macro and micro organisms in the bog naturally purify the water, greatly bringing down the cost of water purification.

and again, extensive destruction of our environment only brings short-term gains but have negative and longlasting repercussions for us, so why would we do it?

[bcbm]

human life was nasty, brutish and short.

Archeologists, historians and anthropologists have shown Hobbes idea of pre-civilized human existence to be patently false. Indeed, the first few thousand years of civilization were far more "nasty, brutish and short" for more people than being gatherer-hunters or nomadic herders.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Archeologists, historians and anthropologists have shown Hobbes idea of pre-civilized human existence to be patently false. Indeed, the first few thousand years of civilization were far more "nasty, brutish and short" for more people than being gatherer-hunters or nomadic herders.

Because as we all know, being gored to death by a mammoth or chewed on by a mountain lion is a walk in the park. :rolleyes: As for dying of hypothermia because the camp fire went out, well it's a laugh innit? :glare:

There may not have been enough sugar around to rot one's teeth, but that doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of other exciting and varied ways to die before one's time.

[Vanguard1917]

Archeologists, historians and anthropologists have shown Hobbes idea of pre-civilized human existence to be patently false. Indeed, the first few thousand years of civilization were far more "nasty, brutish and short" for more people than being gatherer-hunters or nomadic herders.

I'm not denying that the emergence of class society, which emerged out of hunter-gatherer societies, gave way to unprecedented wars, conflicts, barbarism and so on. But it also saw the unprecendented development of our productive capabilities - which went together with developments in science, technology, art, culture, medicine, human knowledge, and so on.

So we have to recognise the contradictory nature of this progress in class societies.

For example, the 20th century witnessed barbarism and human slaughter to an unprecendented scale, with two world wars and global imperialist savagery. But it also saw great developments: world life expectancy has risen from around 30 in 1900 to around 65 in 2000, for instance. We're today living longer, healthier and safer lives than ever before in history, and we are also better educated than ever before.

Thus it's simply not good enough to believe that things were better before. That's conservatism. The point is to free progress from the contradictions imposed upon it by class society.

[bcbm]

Because as we all know, being gored to death by a mammoth or chewed on by a mountain lion is a walk in the park. :rolleyes: As for dying of hypothermia because the camp fire went out, well it's a laugh innit?

Well, given that humanity managed to survive for several hundred thousand years as nomadic gatherer-hunters, I would suspect "death by mammoth" and "death by hypothermia" (fire isn't the only way to keep warm in the cold, lolz) were not particularly common. This is a pathetic argument about the living conditions of the time without any basis in fact.


There may not have been enough sugar around to rot one's teeth, but that doesn't mean that there weren't plenty of other exciting and varied ways to die before one's time.

And yet the average lifespan of the first (several dozens of generations) sedentary, agricultural humans was significantly shorter and all evidence suggests their health, living conditions, etc were much worse. How odd. :rolleyes:


Thus it's simply not good enough to believe that things were better before. That's conservatism. The point is to free progress from the contradictions imposed upon it by class society.

I'm not saying things were better before, period. I'm saying gatherer-hunters lived longer, healthier lives than the vast majority of their civilized counterparts for thousands of years. That isn't a value judgment of which was a better way to live, that is historical fact. Obviously modern society sees a better standard of living, etc, but for a long time that simply wasn't true. Really, its only the development of modern medicine and the various battles against the prevailing work-ethic of the last century that have allowed this to be the case.

[Vanguard1917]

Well, given that humanity managed to survive for several hundred thousand years as nomadic gatherer-hunters, I would suspect "death by mammoth" and "death by hypothermia" (fire isn't the only way to keep warm in the cold, lolz) were not particularly common. This is a pathetic argument about the living conditions of the time without any basis in fact.

So life was all rosy back then? Actually, living conditions back then, from a modern perspective, were pretty terrible.



I'm saying gatherer-hunters lived longer, healthier lives than the vast majority of their civilized counterparts for thousands of years. That isn't a value judgment of which was a better way to live, that is historical fact.


Yes, it's believed that life expectancy saw a sharp drop after the Paleothic period - see the below table from Wikipedia. Notice also that, today, life expectancy is more than double what it was then. And that's only world life expectancy - not life expectancy in the developed world, which is significantly higher.

But what exactly is your point?


Humans by EraAverage Lifespan at Birth
(years)CommentNeanderthal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal)20Homo neanderthalensis is a similar species of modern humans but is still in any case a fellow member of the genus Homo.Upper Paleolithic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic)33At age 15: 39 (to age 54)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-kaplan)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-3)Neolithic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic)20 Bronze Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-4)18 Classical Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Greece)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-5)20-30 Classical Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Rome)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-6)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-7)20-30 Pre-Colombian North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-8)25-35 Medieval Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Britain)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-9)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-10)20-30 Early 20th Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900s)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-11)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-12)30-40 Current world average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#_note-13)67


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, given that humanity managed to survive for several hundred thousand years as nomadic gatherer-hunters, I would suspect "death by mammoth" and "death by hypothermia" (fire isn't the only way to keep warm in the cold, lolz) were not particularly common. This is a pathetic argument about the living conditions of the time without any basis in fact.

Longevity of the species is not the same thing as the longevity of it's individual members, nor does it say anything about the quality of life of that species.

It's perfectly possible to survive long enough to reproduce in sub-optimal conditions, especially for humans. Life as a hunter-gatherer may not be pleasant but it's better than the alternative.


And yet the average lifespan of the first (several dozens of generations) sedentary, agricultural humans was significantly shorter and all evidence suggests their health, living conditions, etc were much worse. How odd.

And I'm not denying that. But thanks to modern technology, one doesn't have to hunt one's own food or dodge woolly mammoths, or live a life of backbreaking labour before dying of a rotten tooth.

Being given a choice between living in the paleolithic era, the middle ages or now, I think I'll stay right here. I don't think it's a coincidence that we control more of nature now than we did in either of the previous eras.

[thewoodcutter]

backbreaking labour is more common in agricultural societies than in hunter-gatherer societies (hitting something with an arrow really isnt that difficult), this has been shown again and again by studies of modern ethnography and archaeology. but, im just trying to clear up some facts, not suggest that we all become hunter-gatherers.

the benefits of agriculture are that while only some of us do the hard labour, others are free to develop technology (maybe mass mechanization will free all of us from labour?). technology in h/g societies is slow to develop because their generally isnt much need for it. so...i dont think theres much point to my post.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

backbreaking labour is more common in agricultural societies than in hunter-gatherer societies (hitting something with an arrow really isnt that difficult),

But of course, you have to make the bow and arrows in the first place, and you won't always hit your target the first time, wasting arrows. Also, you have to make your own clothes and regularly construct shelters, as you can't build anything too permanent.

And you have to start your own fires, which is difficult enough with modern "windproof" matches let alone flints and tinder (assuming that is hasn't been raining recently, making everything wet).

All of this is of course assuming you live in a relatively rich area - in more marginal parts of the world, survival can be a much tougher proposition.

Hunter-gathering may not be as bad as agricultural drudgery with it's sweat-filled days of labour, but by no means is it a comfortable lifestyle. Most of your time will be spent directly on surviving, or learning how to.


technology in h/g societies is slow to develop because their generally isnt much need for it.

Incorrect, it's slow to develop because most of one's days are spent honing one's survival skills, and knowledge is passed by word of mouth which is very much inferior to writing.

[Vanguard1917]

Longevity of the species is not the same thing as the longevity of it's individual members, nor does it say anything about the quality of life of that species.

Yeah, life expectancy may have dropped but a lot improved. The development of productive capabilities, human knowledge, a sophisticated human culture, the sciences, the arts... I.e. things which were simply not developing in hunter-gatherer societies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah, life expectancy may have dropped but a lot improved. The development of productive capabilities, human knowledge, a sophisticated human culture, the sciences, the arts... I.e. things which were simply not developing in hunter-gatherer societies.

And in the long run it was for the good, since the current world average lifespan of 67 years is historically unprecedented.

[thewoodcutter]

Incorrect, it's slow to develop because most of one's days are spent honing one's survival skills, and knowledge is passed by word of mouth which is very much inferior to writing.

agreed, i guess i failed to make that more clear in my statement (when i said agricultural socs could advance more quickly because they could focus on r&d, i implied that hgs could not do so because more time was spent with the daily basics).

but hg societies did less work, thats fact (or is at least supported by a good deal of evidence). and it should be clear to you that just because YOU are not doing physical labour, does not mean your lifestyle isnt being supported by many people who are labouring. and those people probably have no hope of attaining a western lifestyle and will die younger than us (in the west) partly because of poor diet, intense labour and generally terrible living conditions.

[Vanguard1917]

And in the long run it was for the good, since the current world average lifespan of 67 years is historically unprecedented.


Also, the development of the productive forces of society - which weren't developing under hunter-gatherer conditions - makes a modern communist society possible for the first time in history.

[thewoodcutter]

and really, whats the argument here? im not saying that the agricultural revolution wasnt beneficial or that we should revert to hunting elk and gathering raspberries, i just got pissed off because vg1917 called hunter-gathers 'brutish'. and i guess it gave slight personal offence because i am of aboriginal descent.

[bcbm]

So life was all rosy back then?

Of course not. :rolleyes:


Actually, living conditions back then, from a modern perspective, were pretty terrible.

I would say that living conditions were largely dependent on where one lived and which exact "when" we are talking about. There is a large range.


But what exactly is your point?

That life for gatherer-hunters was not universally "nasty, brutish and short."

[Vanguard1917]

That life for gatherer-hunters was not universally "nasty, brutish and short."


I said it was from a modern perspective.

[YSR]

I said it was from a modern perspective.

Primitive peoples don't always agree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society).

P.S. Your reference to Apathy Maybe as a "little lass" when he disagreed with you earlier in this thread was sexist. Don't do it again.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Aside from the criticisms in that article you linked to (which are quite penetrating), if hunter-gathering is so great, why has most of the human species abandoned it as way of life?

[last_angry_man]

The idea that radical environmental groups have had no lasting impact is absurd. Countless corporations admit to abandoning animal testing or no longer doing business with companies that perform testing, directly out of fear of groups like SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty). Groups like Earthfirst!, EFL ALF and even less militant groups like PETA have caused numerous corporations to make the clear business decision to avoid all of the costs, negative publicity, legal entanglements and other non-productive effort that would result from continued battle against these groups. In capitalism the final decision often comes down to simple accounting and these groups have made many “standard” business practices too expensive to continue. These groups have also done more to raise awareness than a lifetime of letter writing, lobbying and other ‘peaceful’ tactics.

If the socialist / communist movements had even one percent of the radical green’s courage and willingness to openly confront their enemy, “revolution” would be more than an intellectual exercise. But while the radical greens are busy TCB, the Reds are content to argue back and forth online. The streets are far too dangerous; lets just blog about revolution instead…..

At 48 I’ve known actual leaders of both movements. One group has forced the world to drastically change how corporations do business. (just compare how factories pollute now versus 40 years ago; how animals are treated now versus 40 years ago, how consumers care about how products are made now versus 40 years ago, etc.) Then look at the status of the ‘revolution’ now versus 1968. Which group has made real progress and had real impact, the radical greens or the thumb-sucking reds?

“revolutionaries” that condemn militant action make me want to puke!

[Vanguard1917]

I fully support animal testing, so why should i have any sympathy for groups who wish it to be outlawed? The same goes for things like biotechnology, intensive farming and nuclear energy.



“revolutionaries” that condemn militant action make me want to puke!


I'm a big fan of militant action - when it's used for progressive ends. Reactionaries are more than capable of 'militancy' too.

[last_angry_man]

I fully support animal testing, so why should i have any sympathy for groups who wish it to be outlawed? The same goes for things like biotechnology, intensive farming and nuclear energy.

I fully support human testing.... so how bout we use you for a crash test dummy and then send our nuclear waste to be buried in your backyard?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I fully support animal testing, so why should i have any sympathy for groups who wish it to be outlawed? The same goes for things like biotechnology, intensive farming and nuclear energy.

I fully support human testing.... so how bout we use you for a crash test dummy and then send our nuclear waste to be buried in your backyard?

Watch out folks, it's the Internet Tough Guy! :rolleyes:

So instead of supporting your stance against animal testing, you resort to schoolyard tactics. Why does this sort of behaviour from a representative of the animal rights lobby not surprise me at all?

[last_angry_man]

So instead of supporting your stance against animal testing

I never claimed to be an 'eco-warrior'. The entire point of my original post was that they have been MUCH more succesful than any political groups. I was responding to the earlier statements about the failure of the eco-activists to make any lasting impact. I am not an active green, but I am duly impressed bytheir successes over the years. And yes, I made a sarcastic comment, but you can only listen to "nukes are great" nonsense for so long before you just want to dump a load of spent fuel rods on their front lawn.

And its just swell that someone favors animal testing; just realize that many of us like animals more than most people. And we will fight as hard to protect them as you might to protect some ugly, smelly, human baby. So we take his cavalier attitude toward animal testing about the same way you might feel about testing products on humans

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I never claimed to be an 'eco-warrior'. The entire point of my original post was that they have been MUCH more succesful than any political groups. I was responding to the earlier statements about the failure of the eco-activists to make any lasting impact.

And you completely ignored the point that "eco-warriors" are reactionary and thus their "gains" ultimately mean nothing, if not a step back for biological science.


And yes, I made a sarcastic comment, but you can only listen to "nukes are great" nonsense for so long before you just want to dump a load of spent fuel rods on their front lawn.

I don't think you'd like it either if I dumped a ton of raw sewage on your doorstep, but that's no reason to oppose public sanitation.


And its just swell that someone favors animal testing; just realize that many of us like animals more than most people.

Yes, we call such people "sociopaths".


And we will fight as hard to protect them as you might to protect some ugly, smelly, human baby.

As opposed to botfly larvae, which are simply adorable. :rolleyes:


So we take his cavalier attitude toward animal testing about the same way you might feel about testing products on humans

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ethical testing of products on humans, but animal testing is necessary to perform tests that would be unethical to perform on humans.

[Vanguard1917]

I fully support human testing.... so how bout we use you for a crash test dummy and then send our nuclear waste to be buried in your backyard?

Along the lines of such "logic": how about you get yourself some leukaemia, heart disease and diabetes - just three of the illnesses for which treatments exist as a result of scientific testing on animals? Or what about getting rid of all the electrical appliances in your home, moving to a hut and burning animal shit for fuel?

Noxion:


Yes, we call such people "sociopaths".



You're too kind.