Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

I'm assuming you're talking to the original poster. Which I have not even read yet. But like I said, the struggle against civilization is synonymous with the struggle for life. So, that's worth fighting/working for.

 

There is one assumption in this post that really irritates me, that an industrial society and rampant consumerism are mutually inclusive. They are NOT. I can thoroughly agree that consumerist industrialism is the leading cause of environmental decay but industry is not wrong, neither is industrialisation. The problem is manufactured obsolecence, consumerism and the lack of environmental impact on the cost of produced goods.

I have yet to meet anyone who talks about 'returning to the land' or the golden age of hunter gather societies that could even live remotely close to those conditions. Have you ever tried to grow your own food with a stick and a few rocks? I'll take my industrially produced shovel any day. I have 7 shovels on my farm (to use and example) 5 are around 18 years old, have wooden handles that are oiled annually, blades that are sharpened monthly and are stored out of the elements. When the handles break they are replaced. Last year we opted for stainless steel shovels with carbon fiber handles, big mistake, the handles broke within two weeks while planting our annual tree replacements and rather than being able to replace the handles we have to return them for a refund. Why the change, you may ask? Because we can no longer find suitable wooden replacement handles, they are either crap wood or do not fit out shovel heads. That is consumerist industrial society, a new shovel $35.00, a new handle $10.00. To keep the whole system running the entire piece needs to be replaced not repared, whereas a functioning society would emphase repair over replacement. Does anyone remember when computers where 'upgraded' rather than replaced?

Much of my equipment is similar to the shovels, I have a root digger that was manufactured between 1819 when the company went into business and 1933 when it was sold. The equipment still serves it's purpose, when it broke the parts were easily fabricated locally. If I had to buy a new one, it would cost between $5- 8,000 and when parts broke I would need to buy specialty 'replacement' parts directly through the manufacturer. Again, this is the consumerist philosophy not industrialism.

I love my shovel, I love my tractor, I love all of my impliments, I love my chainsaw when I cut firewood (primitavists living through the winter, try cutting firewood with a saw, or better 'gathering' enough branches to keep yourself warm.) Industrialism is not inherently bad, consumerism and capitalism are.

I garauntee that of the 3.5 million who live a 'simple' live the vast majority would trade it for a little more convenience and a little less hardship. Who would choose to haul water 5 km EVERY day when an 'industial society' produced pump could put water in town. Simply linking the environemtal costs to production would go along way to changing the attitude of obsolesence or replacement over repair. The added cost on organic food vs. conventional food is a good example.

 

Except any form of industrialism is based in systemic organization and relies on the viewing of the natural world with the resource mentality, as commodity, (land, oil, lumbar,woman, labor) as something seperate and not all emcompassing to facilitate the rampant exploitation/depletion of said resources in ever increasing amount to just sustain itself. It is really not at all a sustainable system,it is purely anti-life. Pretty much inherently puts extractive economics at a greater value then life.

We are not going to be magically transported back in time, we are heading towards a future primitive, whatever that means... The systems in place today are going to collapse because they are inherently insustainable, they must be fought to ensure that the collapse does not include all life, I would like a livable environment rather then extinction. The future is unwritten and we must work together for a future worth living for, build community, learn how to live sustainably, make sure you are not totally dependent on these systems of death. I really doubt that all the shovels will magically disappear. Alot of anti-civ views are simply critique, origins, or atempting to analyze civ from an outside perspective and put it and its insanity in the proper context to life. Life is anything but rigid, it is inherently dynamic.

Of course those that live a "simple life" at the current would "trade up" for the most part. Because they see the examples set by first world media and economic policy and they are already the exploited they have already had their own ways of life destroyed by imperialism and conquest. Unspoiled traditional communities however tend not to abandon their ways willingly.

What you said about repair over replacement definitely has merit though and this shift in mindset will help us tremendously into the future.

 

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1uhfvcGqdw[/video]

 

searching/producing food to, like, consume?

 

I am curious, and I don't mean to offend, as to why you post like this. I'm sure we agree on alot if most likely not everything.\ but it really makes me not want to read what you have posted... and I still have not read anything you have posted. It just does not seem the to be the most effective way to communicate already unpopular perspectives here. Just showing up and making really dense strangely spaced out posts. Like I said, I don't mean to offend, just some advice from another anti-civ-er.

edit: actually it just kinda looks intimidating but really isn't so bad and we do agree on ALOT.
But still I'm not sure that this is really the place for you to info dump like that, just in terms of how communicative it will end up being.
Write a zine I would say!

 

Where is your argument?

While I agree there was little 'consumerism' as we would define it today, there was industry and division of labour in both the Hunter Gather societies and Agrarian Societies; while neither were as complex or wasteful there is significant evidence that in areas of the Middle East, northern Africa and South America that the agricultural activities of early civilisation led to environmental colapse and shifts in bioregions from forest or light savana to desert. I would also argue that the relics left behind in garbage heaps that we now find around ancient settlements are examples of early consumerism. Many cultures accumulated objects to portray wealth or used massive amounts of labour to build religious monuments, at times using slave labour. Both 'consumed' large quantities of resources without returning anything.

Industry existed as early as humans began creating tools to simplify their labour and mine many of the precious commodities (salt, copper, iron) as well as the development of crops through selective breeding. You can have industry without consumerism. Consumerism as the central driving force of our economy really took off in the 1950's with the baby boom and rapidly increasing disposable incomes. Prior to that period the vast majority did not earn enough to consider being wasteful.

Drawing facts from thin air like they are the truth because you said them. In North America, less than 5% of the population is directly employed in food production whereas a further 12% are employed in food processing. In Canada, it is even more desparate with only 3% actively employed in food production and an average farmer age of 63. While it is different in the third world, the numbers engaged in food production exported to the industrialised nations are quite similar. It is the total area of third world land used for production of export crops that is one of the primary problems. Many crops that could easily be grown in the industrialised north if urbanites would get off their lazy, privilaged, entitled asses and 'go back to the land' and many more could be employed in the third world if industrialised nations would simply buy organic over conventional produce. Cuba for example is 50 years ahead of the rest of the world in responsible, sustainable agriculture because of the US embargo. Unlike all other nations they had to rely on the development of environmentally based agriculture as the tools and chemicals conventional agriculture is dependant on in the US and Canada just weren't/ aren't available.

There are many people doing many things in agriculture for the benefit of all humankind that may not fit into your definition of purity but nonetheless are good steps forward and I am talking about grassroots not corporate greenwashing.

There were also about 900 million less people on the planet. Are you suggesting that we return to the H-G or AG society, if so where would you suggest the 'surplus' population go?

None of this is true. Both rural and urban populations can exist quite harmoniously within the environment and can serve valuable functions. It is the mega-city that needs to be dismantled. The production and marketing of consumer goods and services? Just because you 'don't want something' does not mean that other are not entitled to it. While I can agree that rampant consumerism and disposable products are wrong, I disagree again that I should not be allowed a completely repairable shovel or well built repairable stove or fridge. These are not necessarily bad things and I would argue that you take advantage of them in your life, you are obviously using a computer. Urban populations fluctuate with the availability of jobs in a particular city, increases in urbanization are the result of consolidating and centralising production not the other way around. Decentralised production with smaller manufacturing centers more reliant on the skills of the crafts people rather than the robotic mechanisms. Consumerism is directly proportional to the level of disposable income within a community, ie poor people consume less. The level of urban population has very little to do with it except for the possibility of higher paid jobs due to the centralisation of manufacturing that caused the urbanisation in the first place. In many of the highest populate cities the level of consumerism is low on a per capita basis because the majority of people are too poor. Distruction of the environment is directly proportional to the corporate mechanisms responsible for driving an environmentally unsustainable consumerist culture. Only corporations would choose to shit in their bed, real humanbeings given the information and choice would not. Consumerist culture uses advertising to manipulate the consumer to make the advertisers choice rather than the right one, why else would anyone drink Coke or Coors they taste like piss rotted over.

I'll get back to the rest of it later. There are so many flaws, or lack of argument in what you are saying that I could easily write a book on it. There is not one problem but a multitude of forces working both competatively and in cooperation that lead to environmental decay/ destruction and, yes, they are human driven. There are no blanket solutions. If primitivists want to 'go back' then just do it, the rest of us can get back on to constructively building a non-consumerist, sustainable society for the remaining 900 million people, at least in our own simple ways.

 

1. There really was no industry or division of labor in hunter gather living as each individual possesed the means to sustain themselves autonomously within their environment save young 'uns and the elderly who were assisted as needed and contributed as they could. It was inherently an economy of voluntary association. For larger tasks that required more collective effort such as taking down large game individuals and tribes gathered and combined their effort voluntarily and then feasted together. Food and other resources were shared freely when had because there was always a surplus of what was needed to be had in the environment. Scarcity did not exist.

I am not making excuses for rudimentary civilizations or totalitarian agriculture. There were certain inherent consequences to sedentism which down the road became even more compounded and lead to reductions of previously egalitarian living conditions and the specialization of the shaman/priest class, the developement of theocracies, masculine secret societies, the waning of traditional female roles and influence, animal husbandry, the eventual formation of city states, irrigation and the induction of agriculture. The thing about hunter gather living on the other had is that it alway put back more into it's environment then it took out, just inherently.

2. pretty much agree with you here.

3.They will die. A massive die off is inevitable. Industrialism has drastically reduced the earth's carrying capacity and the amount of life on the planet currently can just not be sustained. Civilization exists by cheating carrying capacity through various means, but reality will catch up and collapse is inevitable.

4. I think all of what he said there is true.

If the production of a commodity adversely affects the livelihood of other humans, communities, or the environment then no one is entitled to it.

"I disagree again that I should not be allowed a completely repairable shovel or well built repairable stove or fridge. These are not necessarily bad things"

I would agree with you here, but this part, "I would argue that you take advantage of them in your life, you are obviously using a computer" is completely irrelevant. There is also a certain degree of validity towards the end of that paragraph.

" There is not one problem but a multitude of forces working both competatively and in cooperation that lead to environmental decay/ destruction and, yes, they are human driven. There are no blanket solutions."

Yes, all from within the ken of techno industrial post modern civilization. It is called totality.

"What is the Totality?"
Kevin Tucker

"It is the high residues of hazardous and potentially lethal chemicals inside your fat cells. It is you sitting inside and turning on the television or computer on a beautiful day. It is you shopping when you are depressed. It is the feeling you get that something is missing. It is your worries that a fire may destroy all of your possessions and your plans to try and take them with you. It is the thought that tells you to go on a diet. It is the excess fat on your body. It is the headache that won’t go away. It is the bleeding in your intestines from years of pain alleviating drug use. It is the birth defects of your children. It is your killer when you die from a car accident. It is your savior when it attempts to fill your void for you. It is your carpal tunnel syndrome. It is your tumor. It is your expensive coffin and burial clothing. It is the drugs you take when you need an escape. It is the bulldozer that destroyed the woods you might have known so well. It is the towering skyscraper that makes you feel forever tiny and powerless. It is your boss. It is minimum wage, it is maximum wage.

It is your prison, sometimes with bars, sometimes without. It is all your fears. It is what is keeping you up at night. It is the lock on your door. It is the bullet in your gun. It is your noose and your tie. It is that thing that you don’t want to do, but you feel that you have to. It is the turned cheek. It is the cold shoulder. It is the ad that tells you the internet will provide affection for you. It is the new appliance that you never knew existed, but you can’t live without. It is poverty. It is inequality. It is the sink or swim economy. It is the thing that has categorized you. It has stopped you from doing the things you want. It is what makes you jealous. It is your hate. It is your love. It is your purgatives that you feel might be somewhat strange. It is your clenched fist. It is your mace spray.

It is the police. It is the nightstick. It is the protestor and the media which tells you not to listen to them. It is the corporation which creates a new truth for you daily, one which provides you with the knowledge to buy what they make with confidence. It is the gold star you earned in kindergarten. It is the A you got in high school. It is your college degree. It is your paycheck. It is your therapist. It is your bill from the medicine you bought to ‘fix your brain’.
It is the ache in your back. It is your swollen knees. It is your worsening eyesight from the incandescent glow of our institutions. It is your hearing loss. It is the ‘white noise’ that drives you crazy. It is your adrenaline. It is the tears that pour down your face after a sad movie. It is your longing for a dramatic romance with a happy ending. It is your lust for sex. It is the objectified woman, and the powerless man. It is the rapist. It is the murderer. It is the thief. It is the profiteer. It is the worker. It is the dead union organizer.

It is the solider that is willing to kill and die for cheaper oil. It is the victims of a government enflamed over unwillingness to follow their way of life. It is the activist hung for saying they don’t want to be killed for profits. It is the rubber bullet. It is pepper spray.

It is the extinct species. It is the dying world. It is polluted air. It is tainted water. It is the accident at the nuclear power plant. It is the oil spill. It is the break in the pipeline. It is the brakes that failed. It is the dwindling biodiversity. It is the patented seed. It is the farmer killing her/himself with the pesticides that were going to make life better. It is the seat belt that mangled you, but didn’t kill you entirely. It is the blood dripping from the cut you got at work, but can’t afford to let it heal. It is the concrete beneath your feet. It is the stairs you fall down. It is the train that went off the tracks. It is the plane that blew up. It is the boat that sank. It is the drink you take to just forget it all. It is your misery. It is your world.

It is everything to you. It is civilized existence and the mindset which maintains it.

It is what makes devastation seem not so shocking. It takes you through the day. It dulls you out at night. It gives you nightmares, it gives you dreams. It is your feeling of not having of not having accomplished enough. It is your desire to have a child to complete yourself. It is the physical and mental barriers of civilized life. It is civilization and it has become you. It is a mindset. It is power. It is physically reinforced to block off the reality of it’s powerlessness by mediating human existence from the natural world. It is the feeling of superiority, which supplies the reason to destroy all else. It is unnatural. It will fall, but will you fall with it? It is personal and it is individual. It is defeatable and it’s defeat is needed for our liberation, as well as for that of all else that human kind has set out to conquer and overpower. Freedom is only a thought away. Liberate the mind and the body will follow."

As I said before, there is no "going back" in question.

 

c'mon punkmar, if you got critique then give me a real argument!

under my point 4 of my above post I had an embedded video of the Derrick Jensen doc End CIV with a specific segment I was referring to express a certain point. As I said in another thread I tend to take Derrick Jensen with a grain of salt in general but I was referring to this segment in particular because it had to do with the relationship cities have with their environment when it comes to resources. I don't mind that you took it down, so instead of embedding it I'll just post a link with times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hx-G1uhRqA

5:45 - 10:04

 

Look man in the 2 years or so you were gone we've argued with end-civers till the fucking cows came home, I'm over arguing about it...you said you knew the forums position on this shit and you weren't going to push your agenda...so I'm going to ask you to honor your statement and knock this shit off. We'll agree to emphatically disagree and move on. Don't post end-civ topics, videos, or links on here because they're going to be dismissed. Focus on our common points and leave this point of contention for other forums....cool?

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to seem like I was spamming... and Derrick Jensen Jeez... If it hadn't been for this thread being here I probably wouldn't have even gone into it at all. i'ts all good, I'm all for emphatically disagreeing.... but we are are a persistent group? ... We are winning! just kidding.