Is recycling just a load of BS?

[Cort Haus]

I've nothing against recycling if it is genuinely useful and economic. I am just concerned about the posturing, ritual nature of some green initiatives, and the luddite tendencies designed to drag us back into the backward social systems of the past.

The logical extension of the Ludd argument, which seems to be greeted with a chorus of approval by some one here is to completely shut down our civilisation and to return to the poverty and squalor of the past.

[Dis]

I like modern heating and AC too much.

But there's a good point in reducing consumerism. But can you change people's attitudes?

Myself, I don't buy much. I can't even tell people what I want for christmas. I have everything I need in life. I don't need any more material goods.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The logical extension of the Ludd argument, which seems to be greeted with a chorus of approval by some one here is to completely shut down our civilisation and to return to the poverty and squalor of the past.

Who approves of that?

[General Ludd]

I do.

The vast majority of the world currently lives in the poverty and squalor of the present. I'm all for shutting down civilization and living in sync with the world around us - as we have for practically all of human history (except these last 8000 years or so, which is nothing). But it doesn't really matter if we want this or not. Civilization simply is not sustainable, and it never will be. It's not a question of if it will collapse, but when. And the longer it is prolonged the more catastrophic the collapse will be, and less vitality there will be left in the environment to sustain post-civilization life.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I do.

The vast majority of the world currently lives in the poverty and squalor of the present. I'm all for shutting down civilization and living in sync with the world around us - as we have for practically all of human history (except these last 8000 years or so, which is nothing). But it doesn't really matter if we want this or not. Civilization simply is not sustainable, and it never will be. It's not a question of if it will collapse, but when. And the longer it is prolonged the more catastrophic the collapse will be, and less vitality there will be left in the environment to sustain post-civilization life.

Well THATS optimistic


Lets say I accept your premise that Civilization will collapse-- why should we work now tdo things for the post-Civilization life? (what is that anyway? Are not communities of hunter-gatherers a form of civilization?)

Would it not be better to do things that can prolong the current Civilization?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Flubber

Would it not be better to do things that can prolong the current Civilization?

As I said previously, the longer that a collapse is prolonged, the more catastrophic the collapse will be when it happens, and the less able the environment will be to sustain life. It would be better for the collapse to happen now, when there is 6 billion people in the world and still some remnants of indigenous and uncivilized community then when there is 9 billion people in the world and humanity has been completely polarized into those living in excess and those who are living in poverty and virtual slavery, who can only live through hand-outs from the master class, and it is no longer possible to drink, eat, or even breath anything without it being filtered, processed, and refined. Not to mention all the extinctions of other life forms and the destruction of most eco-systems and nature cycles.

what is that anyway? Are not communities of hunter-gatherers a form of civilization?

Well, that's open to some discussion. Technologically speaking, arguments could be made about whether it meants pre-agricultural society, pre-metalurgy, or something else. But in practical terms, what it means is living in-sync with the world around us instead of in competition against it.

[Wezil]

So I should eat bugs and berries b/c civilization will collapse at some point?

Why hurry that up?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Well, that's open to some discussion. Technologically speaking, arguments could be made about whether it meants pre-agricultural society, pre-metalurgy, or something else. But in practical terms, what it means is living in-sync with the world around us instead of in competition against it.

For what purpose? By what measure is this better than anything else, if even this pseudo-utopia that you describe is not sustainable?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I do.

The vast majority of the world currently lives in the poverty and squalor of the present. .

The number of people who emerged from poverty in the last 30 years is dramatic. In 1976 I certainly wasnt counting on seeing the industrialization of China and India in my life time.

And I would suggest to you that the scenarios of global climate collapse are generally based on the extension of current levels of global economic growth, which imply moving more people out of poverty. Now it may be those growth projections are unrealistic - then we are farther from "collapse" Or they may be realistic - in which case you really need to acknowledge what you are suggesting giving up.

[General Ludd]

As I have said before, walking is not going to make the metro disapear, and eating bugs and berries (what is this with eating bugs anyways? ) is not going to make civilization collapse. You can't live as though civilization doesn't exist untill it no longer exists.

What can be done? Some environmentalists think nothing can be - that all we can really do is sit back and wait for it to happen. Some say it's hopeless to do anything at all, while others say we must do everything to conserve what we can in the mean time. Some people think that society can be made to change, slowly, whether it be through legislature, political activism, or sheer hippie love-power. Some people think that the collapse can be hastened through direct-action (ie. blowing up factories, roads, hydro lines, dams, communication towers, ect...).

Some people even think that technology - that thing that's causing the whole problem - will some how magically correct the whole thing, so we can just continue living as we do not and not worry about it, because as long as we have faith and listen to the men in robes lab coats, we will be redeamed.

[Wezil]

I may be completely off base here (wouldn't be the first time) but it seems you are arguing I should give up the trappings of civilization b/c at some point civilization will collapse if I don't...

If the absence of Civ is a given (at some point) why hasten it? Why should the sacrifice/loss be mine?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I do.

Well, that much is a given.

I wondere more about who was gonna to greet you with a "chorus of approval"

[Wezil]

edit; wrong thread

[Spiffor]

Well, that's open to some discussion. Technologically speaking, arguments could be made about whether it meants pre-agricultural society, pre-metalurgy, or something else. But in practical terms, what it means is living in-sync with the world around us instead of in competition against it.

The very aim of environmentalism and sustainable development is precisely to make urban societies in synch with the natural world. Making human society a part of the ecosystem, in other words.

I guess you don't believe in that idea.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by General Ludd Some people even think that technology - that thing that's causing the whole problem - will some how magically correct the whole thing, so we can just continue living as we do not and not worry about it, because as long as we have faith and listen to the men in robes lab coats, we will be redeamed.

Not by magic at all.

Right now, if all tech disappeared (or all post HG tech, or all post 1750 tech) we'd face mass starvation immediately - we can support 6 billion NOW, forget about sustainability, without modern tech. But for the first time in eons, global population growth is SLOWING. Cause of magic? No. Cause of trends within society, including changing roles of women, urbanization, and the availability of birth control technology. Now we can look at what technology, combined with good policy decisions, can do. Its got nothing to with listening to men in lab coats, its doing our own social and economic analysis.


Resource shortages are self-correcting. Price goes up, people use less. Pollution is a more difficult problem cause of the tragedy of the commons - everyone can pour filth into the air, which no one owns. So policy is needed. The question there is whether policy thats late is too late - and I think the jurys out on that one. In any case you surely wont solve global warming by blowing up dams. And doing all the small things is likely to help.