@Sic - I wasn't implying you were that class of hypocrite - but I know more than one person who is.

If your ultimate concern is unsustainable resource use leading to the collapse of society... well, frankly, I'm not sure why you're concerned. You seem to relish the concept of society being forced into a more sustainable model; resource depletion will certainly do the job. It's not like the entire species is going to be killed off if society collapses, so since your end goal is - at least to me - pretty much identical whether it's mankind choosing to take it down a notch or it being forced to do so because there isn't any other choice.

Now, I'm not saying that I relish the thought of the end of life as we know it, but - again, I freely admit the fact that I may be misunderstanding you - your end goal appears to be the *same state* if you became World Dictator and forced people to follow your goals or if economic collapse caused it. Massive death and destruction, people having zero choice but to do what they need to survive in a post-consumer society, ect.

Which requires me to ask the question: if the *only two paths* you see end at the same place, then why should I give a shit?

I'm not saying resource depletion is nothing to be concerned about, but you appear to be pretty much painting this as a black or white issue. It's not.

I've bookmarked it and will look at it when I get a chance.

The problem is, there isn't a 1-to-1 correspondence of problems between the past and now. Solving a modern-day problem with an old solution will just cause more problems.

@strategos
I have to say I think most of your question is framed very strangely and I dont know how to answer. But if my ultimate goal is sustainability, why should I care if we get there by choice, some kind of green revolution (that isnt co-opted by big business? yeah right) or complete societal collapse? Because the longer Industrial civilization is allowed to continue to worse the damage will be. Besides if we do it by choice I'm sure theres alot we could save. I'm not saying theres nothing worthwhile about civilization. hell, I LIKE civilization. I like to be able to hear any kind of music I want. I like carpeting and bookshelves and spraypaint. I tryed halo reach a few weeks ago with a high school buddy, and hell i even liked that (the constant yelling was a little off putting though. "DOUBLE KILL, TRIPLE KILL, KILLTASTIC, KILL YOUR OWN MOTHER, A BILLION POINTS!!!" I like that even if I have no money, civilization allows me to sustain myself with no survival skills. I like coffe in the morning, which sure as fuck doesnt grow anywhere near ohio. I like tomatoes in winter. But the cost man! whats the cost! why vant anyone see what we're doing to our environment? we are part of it and we cant see that anymore (why else is 'nature' even a word?) we are killing ourselves! sure dr. pepper is great but it's not worth the cost.

I really hope you do look at it. It's worth the whopping 15 minutes it takes to read.

better link for the book

http://www.slideshare.net/savenaturalworld/as-the-worldburnsderrickjensen

dling it now.

@Sic - are you sure you *want* me to read it? Because, like it or not, we've developed a pretty adversarial relationship when it comes to stuff you post. I tend to say "wait a second, what this guy is saying here, here, and here has no basis in reality, or is ignoring important data that doesn't agree with his central premise", and you tend to say "you're picking nits. The message is more important than any flaws in it" - which, obviously, I disagree with.

But I will go do so... except I can't, because work is firewalling it. So I will do so tonight.

Well, I just read 1/4 of it and am unimpressed. The message seems to be: People won't do little things to help the planet, so let's try to make them do big things that the also won't do, since it doesn't matter anyway?

Did I get that right?

Yeah, I get that changing lightbulbs and not using plastic bags isn't enough, but isn't it a start? Why don't we get people to do that, while at the same time doing things to have companies reduce their carbon foot print.

But, have to get back to HW, will try to finish it up later.

The definition of an "intellectual" is someone who talks about problems that other people should solve. Sic, I hear the yipping... while you use all the consumer products you rail about. Do you have a garden? Do you have an IPhone? IPOD? Do you walk to school? When your lifestyle reflects your beliefs, you'll have more credibility in proposing that others follow it, or be forced to follow it.

@Indy,

I'd say Sic's lifestyle reflects his beliefs more than anyone else on this site. He doesn't go to school (correct?), he accesses the internet from a library, he squats in various houses, etc.

He's beliefs may be misguided, but he follows through on them more than most.

@warsprite: I *think* that Sicarius' point is that our current course is taking us straight to the Early Neolithic, and that we're in denial about the radical nature of the steps we'll need to take in order to avoid that destination.

@indy maybe you shouldnt make personal assumptions about someone you dont know. I dont have an iphone or any of that shit, yeah i have a garden, I have gardens that feed my whole neighborhood so back the fuck off. Attack my beliefs all you want but dont resort to personal insults. you dont see me stooping down to that level. I would hope you're better than a politician.

actually abge, I'm ashamed to admit I now have a laptop. I've turned to internet porn in an attempt to buy some land, cuz everytime I've tried to shack up in the woods it leads to jail.


"I *think* that Sicarius' point is that our current course is taking us straight to the Early Neolithic, and that we're in denial about the radical nature of the steps we'll need to take in order to avoid that destination. "

thats a better summary than anyone here has ever been able to give by far. I wont say you hit the nail on the head, but at least the hammer didnt slip and hit someones grandmother in the head. I'll be the first to admit I'm not the best at explaining myself, but the stuff some of the people here come up with..... ugh.

I'm not saying hunter-gatherers from 15,000 years ago "got it right" or "have all the answers" but they avoided thrashing about destroying everything they came in contact with, holy fuck we cant even make a glass of milk without fucking up in some horrible way.
They managed to avoid the behavior of a two year old breaking his toy truck that has become our entire "culture"

Oh and no i dont go to school. this doesnt however mean that I dont place a high value on learning. I'm currently learning spanish (as well as just completing a language of my own) , learning about companion planting and permaculture, cob house construction, all kinds of stuff.

They destroyed everything they came in contact with.

You're basically pretending (for some reason) that early man wasn't a vicious predator. We're more than that. We're superpredators, and pretending that long ago was a wonderful time that nothing hurt is just insane.

Don't kid yourself.

"They destroyed everything they came in contact with"

really? wow then its amazing that we're still here after 2 million years of humanity. Can you tell me about the destructiveness of the navajo or hopi? soooo destructive them, Its amazing they're still living in the same place as they have been for at least 13,000 years. NE arizona is a smoking pit then?

And as far as me thinking it was some kind of wonderland... do you even read what I type? seriously. I just got done explaining very high infant mortality rates I obviously dfont think it was all junky dory

sic,
did you just defeat your own argumnent? it has been suggested by many on this thread (and you have ceded this point) that prehistoric/paleolithic humans had devestating impacts on native ecosystems into which they entered (including navajo, etc.). yet, as you say, these people remain 13000 years later. the apparent contradiction calls into question how humanity can simultaneously deplete resources and yet maintain or improve its material efficiency., and, as you have also ceded, the snswer must involve technological innovation (improved agricultural practices, building techniques, etc.). this seems to me to encapsulate the entire debate. you maintain that under current practices, whcih are far greater in magnitude than in the past, humanity cannot keep up its rate of production, which is likely true. however, your argument precludes the possibility of continuing the cycle of overgrowth and innovation, which has served so well and which (correct me if i'm wrong) your opponents suggest is the only plausible way forward. so, rather than revert to a minimized version of exactly the smae process, is it not more logical to reconcile your notion of following historical precednet with its propensity for scientific development?

ps... sorry for any typos; i'm on my phome

1. I think there is a profound difference between an ecosystem adjusting to a new predator, and an ecosystem failing altogether.

2. Cob houses arnt exactly innovation. they're the most widely used structure in human history. neither is permaculture. look into it.

3. The cycle cannot continue forever. fact. The conditions/variables whatever are beginning to change. We are abusing the environment far too much to be able to continue, and the extent to which we are destroying the earth has made it seem like that cycle may be coming to an end relativly soon.

Lookin forward to it! You should attend some classes at STFU.

thank you for the deep insight. Did you think of that all by yourself?

You are most welcome. And yes, I did!

Just because you say the cycle is coming to an end doesn't make it so.

You're still speaking in vague, overly broad terms. You have to cite SOMETHING to back up your claims, particularly when they're in the "sky is falling" vein.

give me a threshold.
whats you line in the sand

The cycle cannot continue forever. fact. <----- Proof, please. Except in the meta-sense that the planet will eventually burn up when the sun expands.

The conditions/variables whatever are beginning to change. <----- Ok... conditions are always changing. Explain which conditions or variables are changing, and how that supports your thesis

We are abusing the environment far too much to be able to continue, and the extent to which we are destroying the earth has made it seem like that cycle may be coming to an end relatively soon. <---- This kind of looks like your thesis, but you offer no supporting evidence of your thesis.


I'm even trying to help you express your thoughts more coherently, because this is like explaining to a freshman history student why I shit all over their essay.

ok let me stop you at the top. How can growth continue forever (or until the sun explodes, whatever) on a finite planet?

Like I said, with the caveat that we're all fucked in the end anyhow, because no matter what, we're consuming resources at a rate that will extinguish them.

No matter what level of consumption of natural resources, we'll run out eventually.

So I'd say that doesn't so much require proof as its irrelevant, because in any case, we're fucked in the long term.

Next.

2.
are you suggesting building and agriculture have not improved since the paleolithic age? (an age defined, incidentally, by its lack of any form of agriculture) i think you failed to grasp the gist of my point: humans have always consumed resources at an "unsustainable rate (e.g. soil depletion in early modern britain-, but they overcome these limitations with new practices (e.g. crop rotation that enables cultivation of all available land without half laying fallow at all times). note how balance was restored without a catastrrophic death rate (in this case, famine). there's no reason the process of scientific solutions cannot continue to increase efficiency in, for example, the realm of genetic engineering.

again, on phone so sorry if im completely unintelligible

no thats not what I'm saying at all. I was confused because I thought you were saying that me building a cob house would be a contradiction because i would be using technological progress.

I'm not saying its impossible to continue the cycle of innvation, I'm saying I think it's unlikly. This article is a good example of what i mean, in particular
"Alaska has enormous opportunities for renewables—wind, microhydro, geothermal, tidal, even solar. But these are far from being adequately developed, and progress in that direction will take time and lots of investment—a dramatically higher pace of investment than is currently evident."

http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/165463-alaska-and-energy