“IMO, where the Christians went wrong, way back in the depths of their history, was to invent a division between Creator and Creation, so that ‘religion’ and ‘holiness’ or ’sanctity’ can be devoted to some invisible, unexplainable, domain of God, or Heaven, whilst, down here, where we all actually exist, on Earth, it’s just ‘material stuff’”

I think that is a very important observation, and I had come to the same conclusion myself. Modern consumer society is very much a Judeo-Christian phenomenon. Contrary to popular belief, the Christian church did not oppose scientific inquiry, but supported it, despite friction cause by the new theories. Science underpins technology, and among other factors led to the industrial revolution.

It is notable that other cultures which hold that humans are spiritually bound to the Earth (reflecting physical reality) tend to have a more harmonious relationship with Nature. For whatever reason though, the modern materialist culture has broken that link.

A low growth culture can work, where it is recognised that there are a finite amount of resources to go round, and they should be shared fairly. Humans have a remarkable capacity for cooperation (when it suits them). The problem is that modern technology promises increasing wealth, and materialist culture tells us it is ok to go get it. This aligns with our evolutionary instinct.

So the question is, can the genie be put back in the bottle? I.e. make badgers sacred? My view is no, it is too late for that. Cultures are competitive, and any new religion which promises salvation but appears to adopt austerity is not likely to get a foothold.

A new culture is only likely to take over if the current civilisation collapses, which is an area I fundamentally disagree. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that collapse is imminent, or even inevitable. Tainter says that complexity is a problem solving response, and we now have the most complex society ever. That implies we are also capable of solving very difficult problems. Only huge natural disasters like super volcanoes may present insurmountable obstacles. Either way, it is currently impossible to predict the future course of civilisation.

My worry is that the industrial machine will continue unabated, with eventually every available hectare of the planet under some form of human management, a “standing room only” scenario.

So faced with the twin problems of technological progress providing increasing wealth, and an evolutionary instinct to improve relative fitness, I say these are the vast forces that will sweep us along. But I don’t see collapse of industrial civilisation as inevitable. Possible maybe, but not inevitable. I also don’t see a pre-emptive attempt to instil a new culture has any chance of success against the vast forces. But I guess there is no harm in trying.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/18/sea-shepherd-release-bluefin-tuna-libya

scroll down to Zerzan

http://essentialdissent.blogspot.com/search/label/Anarchism

One of the groups that inspired me to get involved with what was then a genuinely radical form of environmentalism was the UK arm of Earth First!, which sprang into life here in the early 90s. I cut my teeth, sometimes literally, in direct action to prevent roads being built through the English countryside. This kind of action has a powerful impact, and sometimes it even stops the things it intends to stop. I’m right behind it. Not so much physically these days due to having a young family, but certainly in principle and I don’t doubt, in the future, in practice also.

So don’t get me wrong – direct action to prevent the destruction of wild places and the non-human world, whether it be in England, the Amazon or Canada or anywhere, has my full support. I was simply pointing out that it is not any kind of ’solution’ to the wider problems caused by industrial capitalism. It is fire-fighting. Fire-fighting is very useful – indeed, vital – but it does not eliminate the existence of fire.

As to blowing up dams to protect salmon and watercourses – well, I’m not sure this has ever actually been done, has it? We hear a lot of wild talk about it on the fringes of the US radical eco movement, but I’ve not seen any takers for the punishment that would ensue, which I think shows the limitations of advocating it.

A good read, and I’m glad to see the increasing awareness around the destructiveness and inevitable collapse of civilisation. Things like this help increase that awareness.

You wrote:

“Rhisiart – my point was that ‘anti-civ’ activism as advocated by Jensen and his ilk, whether it be blowing up dams or trying to hack into financial systems, is not going to destroy industrialism. You seem to be making a slightly different point; that industrialism, or at least industrial capitalism, will likely destroy itself. I quite agree with this; it’s pretty much the starting point for the Dark Mountain journey”

I agree that industrial capitalism will destroy itself. But what do you suggest we do in the meantime?

I’ve read Endgame by Derrick Jensen, and another of his books, and am absolutely behind the actions he advocates.

You say that blowing up dams will not stop industrialism. But the point is, it could save the salmon.

For the last few forests, the last few members of an endangered species, the last few people of a displaced or exterminated indigenous culture, this shit has to stop as soon as possible. And no, that doesn’t mean an immediate global shutdown of industrial civilisation (if only). For those survivors, it means stopping the single accountable force attacking them. It’s a matter of simply fighting back.

Of course industrial civilisation will collapse with our help or without it. The question is: what’s left of the earth when we get there?

For those few who put themselves between this destructive culture and what remains of the earth and humanity, the least they deserve is our support.

Cheers,
Chris

Industrial civilisation doesn’t have to go anywhere. It just needs to be made sustainable. You could argue that Hemp should have been the primary material for industry since the 30’s but it was ignored in favour of crude oil. If you can get 1000 gallons of methanol from an acre of Hemp, i calculate that about 1/6th of the UK land area could provide around 360 million barrels of fuel a year. With some efficiency, that means we can carry on. Not to mention the seeds from hemp yields that could be used for food at a local and national level.

Industrial civilisation just needs to evolve, not reinvent itself. Hemp can fill the void left by declining crude.

Capitalism, greed and even population growth are not the problems, and in any case can’t be fixed. It’s the ad hoc, myopic and non-holistic design systems that have been employed. The goal should not be full employment but free time. If you feel secure, all of your needs are easily met, and you have a strong community supporting you, there is not much incentive to have a large family and consume prolific amounts of resources. This effect is approximated in the observed low birth rates and low energy consumption in countries that have developed social networks (e.g. Italy). Full time commuted work reduces social interaction and increases isolation, exacerbated by modern suburban design. People look for solutions to their unhappiness by buying toys.

So the strategy of people who want to make a difference (concluding prematurely that you can’t is putting the cart before the horse), is to learn, promote and employ these holistic design systems in order to develop business and lifestyle models that are attractive and profitable. Such systems I have found are permaculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture) and the work of Christopher Alexander (A Pattern Language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language).

Capitalism can be used for positive ends, and there are alternative financing models (banks can be bypassed: we all have resources to pool, sharing in the various benefits):

http://nmag.soton.ac.uk/mollison/html/15-millionaires.html
http://www.permaculture.com/node/141

“But are we never to have palaces, never to have refined tastes, complex pleasures, never to let the imagination fulfil itself? Even a Marxist world must have some destination, must develop into some higher state, which can only mean a high pleasure and richer happiness for the human beings in it.”

does one see the equivalence with ‘growth’ in the way that you envisage it, that is to say, growth in consumerist society with attendant trappings (more TVs, more cars, more stuff)?