What I'm meaning to say here is that regardless of what green-minded folks' intentions are, most of the 'sustainability' ideas and programs out there is there in order to make a buck off of them, practically none of it is truly sustainable, and none of it is actually going to help the world in the long run.
I certainly agree that ditching consumerism is a wonderful idea that really would slow the rate of destruction a lot, and population control is a nice thought (though at this point it's a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out). But there are two problems with those things: Problem 1 - neither of those are going to happen to any effective degree. Our culture is by necessity predicated on constant growth, and as long as it exists we will grow and consume until nothing is left. Problem 2 - Even if we somehow did the impossible and managed to force both of those changes, it wouldn't be enough. Civilised culture MUST find a way to grow and consume, and if we block off one way we will find another.
I mentioned 10 thousand years because that (roughly) is when the agricultural revolution, and thus the culture of civilisation that we're stuck in, began.
Maybe you're not seeing the same ideas I'm seeing? I think permaculture/forest gardens and ecovillage lifestyles (even within cities, for now) are effective, and no one's making bucks off them...
When I talk about sustainability, I really mean "practices which are sustainable" and I really don't quite understand what else it might mean. "Lower carbon footprint products" doesn't qualify in my mind, for instance.
Google 'sustainable development' and you'll find all sorts of businesses and even governments making huge profits out of the concept of sustainability.
Regarding permaculture and ecovillages, there actually are people making money off of the ideas. Selling lots of books, CDs, DVDs, classes, supplies, seeds, even real estate. Just google something like 'buy permaculture' or 'buy ecovillage' and you'll find plenty of folks marketing, often successfully, to exactly that idea.
But the intended thrust of my post is not that sustainability is popularised in this culture for the sake of profit--that's generally the reason any idea goes mainstream, after all; it doesn't say anything about the idea itself.
What I really want to say is, I don't think it helps. Taking up sustainable practices, even if they truly are 100% sustainable (a rare thing) doesn't generally make our life sustainable (as that would require a true seperation from the system that is practically impossible in this culture) and it doesn't actually help the planet; it just hurts a little bit of it a little less for a little while. Which is a good thing, don't get me wrong! It is a noble thing and beautiful... it just isn't going to help the planet.
We're not interested in helping the planet. We're interested in stopping irreversible destruction to the environment that endangers our human sustainability. George Carlin is right!
I don't think that we can completely *avoid* affecting the planet. But I do believe we can find ways of not fucking up the system entirely. Maybe a few less animal species, maybe more plant life, but we can keep the basic 21% oxygen system going. Sustainable batteries. It's where it's at.
You don't think it could catch on and cascade? Someone has to set the example. Generally, people don't take big leaps if they don't see someone else succeeding at the New Thing. I figure if I contribute by being one more of those pioneers, the critical mass might be reached and get everyone's attention, and maybe it could take off from there. I think that tends to be how things work. "Environmentalist" used to be a bad word, now green is all the rage. ;)
Of course it will need to be combined with other things to really save the planet in time. But the fundamental values should be where we're hitting hard. I see it working all around me. If we get around to hitting hard by going to war with oil companies and governments... well I guess you know where to contact me for the resistance network.
Honestly, I truly don't think it can catch on and cascade. Last decade, and the decade before that, and you can keep going looking back like that a looong way, people have been seeing little signs and thinking a big paradigm change for the spiritual or the environmental or etc. was just around the corner. Somehow it never happens. I see no reason that now is any different. Our culture and its paradigm and the systems within it resists such things, only allowing them if they can be made to fit in with its primary thrust. All the many, many 'everything would change if everybody would just start doing this' movements fail because everybody never does.
The thing that is causing the harm is civilisation, and the thing that is magnifying the harm the most is industry. And since their inception, neither one of those things has ever, ever changed at the base of what they are. And it is their very basic nature that makes them destroyers of the world.
I know it's depressing, I know it sounds like cynicism and doomsaying, but all the evidence supports it. I can find no other conclusion; the world will keep being destroyed until civilisation is.
The good news, the only news that gives me hope, is that that destruction is inevitable.
What I'm meaning to say here is that regardless of what green-minded folks' intentions are, most of the 'sustainability' ideas and programs out there is there in order to make a buck off of them, practically none of it is truly sustainable, and none of it is actually going to help the world in the long run.
I certainly agree that ditching consumerism is a wonderful idea that really would slow the rate of destruction a lot, and population control is a nice thought (though at this point it's a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out). But there are two problems with those things:
Problem 1 - neither of those are going to happen to any effective degree. Our culture is by necessity predicated on constant growth, and as long as it exists we will grow and consume until nothing is left.
Problem 2 - Even if we somehow did the impossible and managed to force both of those changes, it wouldn't be enough. Civilised culture MUST find a way to grow and consume, and if we block off one way we will find another.
I mentioned 10 thousand years because that (roughly) is when the agricultural revolution, and thus the culture of civilisation that we're stuck in, began.
Reply
When I talk about sustainability, I really mean "practices which are sustainable" and I really don't quite understand what else it might mean. "Lower carbon footprint products" doesn't qualify in my mind, for instance.
Reply
Regarding permaculture and ecovillages, there actually are people making money off of the ideas. Selling lots of books, CDs, DVDs, classes, supplies, seeds, even real estate. Just google something like 'buy permaculture' or 'buy ecovillage' and you'll find plenty of folks marketing, often successfully, to exactly that idea.
But the intended thrust of my post is not that sustainability is popularised in this culture for the sake of profit--that's generally the reason any idea goes mainstream, after all; it doesn't say anything about the idea itself.
What I really want to say is, I don't think it helps. Taking up sustainable practices, even if they truly are 100% sustainable (a rare thing) doesn't generally make our life sustainable (as that would require a true seperation from the system that is practically impossible in this culture) and it doesn't actually help the planet; it just hurts a little bit of it a little less for a little while. Which is a good thing, don't get me wrong! It is a noble thing and beautiful... it just isn't going to help the planet.
Reply
I don't think that we can completely *avoid* affecting the planet. But I do believe we can find ways of not fucking up the system entirely. Maybe a few less animal species, maybe more plant life, but we can keep the basic 21% oxygen system going.
Sustainable batteries. It's where it's at.
Reply
Reply
Of course it will need to be combined with other things to really save the planet in time. But the fundamental values should be where we're hitting hard. I see it working all around me. If we get around to hitting hard by going to war with oil companies and governments... well I guess you know where to contact me for the resistance network.
Reply
The thing that is causing the harm is civilisation, and the thing that is magnifying the harm the most is industry. And since their inception, neither one of those things has ever, ever changed at the base of what they are. And it is their very basic nature that makes them destroyers of the world.
I know it's depressing, I know it sounds like cynicism and doomsaying, but all the evidence supports it. I can find no other conclusion; the world will keep being destroyed until civilisation is.
The good news, the only news that gives me hope, is that that destruction is inevitable.
Reply
Leave a comment