An interesting and thought provoking read...
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/7277
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/7277
Dark Ecology
- Thread starter bilmo-p5
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Elen Sentier
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Mmmmm ... I enjoyed that, thanks Bilmo. It's feelings and ideas I hear so often in my work, from people who feel "stuck" in some way. I could bore for England about it but I'll stop at a couple of quotes from writers who have helped me become me.
One is Ursula K leGuin, a superb sci-fi/fantasy writer; in her seminal novel Left Hand of Darkness she has a short tale about someone who is running away from somewhere [Mishnory] the hero says that as long as you are running away from Mishnory you are on the Mishnory road. To go somewhere else you must have a new direction. Kaczynski is still on the old road, he runs away from somewhere he does not run to somewhere; he cannot be where he is in his soul this way.
The other is TS Eliot who I came to love in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] form at secondary school. East Coker (one of the 4 Quartets) says
In order to arrive there,
To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not,
You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstasy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
You must go through the way in which you are not.
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not.
This is utterly true. When students and clients come to embrace this in their own way they suddenly find that they are no longer running away from something old and distasteful but running towards something new.
That was all very deep and meaningful but it works, and thank you again, Bilmo, for stirring my grey matter this way
One is Ursula K leGuin, a superb sci-fi/fantasy writer; in her seminal novel Left Hand of Darkness she has a short tale about someone who is running away from somewhere [Mishnory] the hero says that as long as you are running away from Mishnory you are on the Mishnory road. To go somewhere else you must have a new direction. Kaczynski is still on the old road, he runs away from somewhere he does not run to somewhere; he cannot be where he is in his soul this way.
The other is TS Eliot who I came to love in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] form at secondary school. East Coker (one of the 4 Quartets) says
In order to arrive there,
To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not,
You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstasy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
You must go through the way in which you are not.
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not.
This is utterly true. When students and clients come to embrace this in their own way they suddenly find that they are no longer running away from something old and distasteful but running towards something new.
That was all very deep and meaningful but it works, and thank you again, Bilmo, for stirring my grey matter this way
I enjoyed reading that, leaves you with a lot to think about. In some small way, many on the forum aspire to this.
So he collects vastly more scythes than he needs which is as consumerist as you can get. Modern life and facilities offer more freedom than people have ever known even and the opportunity to turn their back on the "grid" if they wish.
The writer admires the Unabomber. That says everything I think we need to know about them.
I'm in agreement with boatman's 2nd statement.
I'm in agreement with boatman's 2nd statement.
A particularly pessimistic view on life, the universe and everything!
Basically he regrets the passing of the "classical" Green movement, and is basically thinking/hoping that the existing civilisation will inevitably collapse, forcing the survivors back into equanimity with Nature. He dismisses Science as having no solutions either now or in the future, whilst effectively blaming it for all the current "ills" of society.
What a sad, bitter outlook to life.....
Basically he regrets the passing of the "classical" Green movement, and is basically thinking/hoping that the existing civilisation will inevitably collapse, forcing the survivors back into equanimity with Nature. He dismisses Science as having no solutions either now or in the future, whilst effectively blaming it for all the current "ills" of society.
What a sad, bitter outlook to life.....
I have to say I agree with the last 3 posts. The return to some romanticised and probably non-existent greener past could come about at the cost of enormous suffering and many deaths. Not something I would wish for.
Cheers (no, really)!
Huon
There used to be a bloke in the local town who would shout at lorries, the author reminds me of him.
He reminds me of those who froth at the mouth and blame everything on bankers and landowners!
He makes some good points though - I do like the phrase "human scale autonomy"
Certainly we will run out of fossil fuels and building a society with an ever expanding population that can only be supported by using finite energy supplies that takes millions of years to create is foolhardy - but people are foolhardy and its easier to ignore problems that will not kill us today or even this year. Current ease has a higher priority that future sustainability.
He makes some good points though - I do like the phrase "human scale autonomy"
Certainly we will run out of fossil fuels and building a society with an ever expanding population that can only be supported by using finite energy supplies that takes millions of years to create is foolhardy - but people are foolhardy and its easier to ignore problems that will not kill us today or even this year. Current ease has a higher priority that future sustainability.
That's pretty shortsighted, don't you think?
He might just agree with that guys ideas, not his actions.
I think the man has some very valid points for the many of us to think about. I'm always surprised at how folks so easily dismiss things they don't like or want to hear. Pointing fingers instead of using ones head is so easy...unless offcourse you use that head to stick it into the sand.
I do believe current society is going to collapse, simply because it is not sustainable for very much longer, unless we do make some fundamental changes. That has nothing to do with sentiments, but with simple mathmetics.
I don't believe he's all that pessimistic, but it might be because many refuse to open up their eyes and prefer to waste away their happy little lives without making changes.
Hi Ron,
Please don't get me wrong. I like you and enjoy your posts but if you use phrases like
"Refuse to open their eyes"
"Happy little lives"
"Pretty shortsighted"
"Pointing fingers"
then your post becomes confrontational and tends to be counter productive. I don't think anyone was dismissing everything that was being said by Paul Kingsnorth. BR probably summed up the views of most when he said that there were some good points made but that the general tone of the article was extreme and came across badly.
My own view is that we are very quick to blame science, technology and modern life but ignore the fact that these things are also beneficial. It is the way we use them that is the problem and that is a human and social issue. As an example, in my own country the Moa, a large flightless bird, was hunted to extinction and large areas of New Zealand deforested over the course of 200 years from about 1500. This was caused by people with stone age technology and not by modern interlopers.
Actually, Huon, that last bit was very illuminating (Oh, and I agree fully with the rest of your post as well, but I digress!)
Mankind is the "devil" whose interference with "the natural order" should be forever broadcast as evil, to those of a certain mindset. Science is just the latest "human attribute" to beat us all with! Because as you point out, we've been doing pretty well with just fire and big sticks at making permanent changes to the ecosystem for thousands of years. Australia and the Aborigines is another example of this.
But it was the whole tone of defeatism and negativity in that article that got to me. As are certain "cast in stone" assumptions, underpinning most of which is the idea that science won't help - eg oil will run out. Really? What if I told you that we could potentially genetically alter and breed breed bugs to eat waste vegetable matter and excrete benzene? Absurd? No - already happening - the next step is moving from small-scale tests to commercial production. I'll give you another. "Uranium reserves will run out in the next few decades". Actually - no they won't. Uranium is actually a very common element, but normally found in very low concentrations - eg in seawater. Extraction is purely an engineering problem, easily solved if it becomes economically attractive to do so.
The issue underpinning most doomsday scenarios tends to be population growth. However, even there things are looking up. The geometric progressions suggested 50 years ago have not been borne out - it actually looks as if things are spinning down. Sure, it will probably get bigger than the current 7 billion - maybe up to 9 billon - but the Earth can sustain that many people with existing resources. And if we really need more food, convert hundreds of square miles of desert in - say - Namibia into hydroculture greenhouses, water and energy provided by a mix of solar and nuclear energy and desalination plants. Need more rare minerals? Plenty in the Asteroid belt.......
I say - take heart, folks! Admire all the great things that Science has brought us, and all the even greater things it'll do in the future. As bushcrafters, let us revel in the information we can gather of the natural world around us just from sitting at a table talking to our peers, or reading manuscripts, satellite maps etc etc etc.. Let us rejoice that - if we so desire - we can actually fly off to all these wonderful places and explore them for ourselves, supported by the very best science - and generations of experience from our ancestors - can provide us with. And if we have accidents exploring some of these places, let us give thanks that with gps, mobile phones, helicopters, on-site medics etc, we can be found and whisked off to a trauma centre to get our injuries fixed.
Mankind is the "devil" whose interference with "the natural order" should be forever broadcast as evil, to those of a certain mindset. Science is just the latest "human attribute" to beat us all with! Because as you point out, we've been doing pretty well with just fire and big sticks at making permanent changes to the ecosystem for thousands of years. Australia and the Aborigines is another example of this.
But it was the whole tone of defeatism and negativity in that article that got to me. As are certain "cast in stone" assumptions, underpinning most of which is the idea that science won't help - eg oil will run out. Really? What if I told you that we could potentially genetically alter and breed breed bugs to eat waste vegetable matter and excrete benzene? Absurd? No - already happening - the next step is moving from small-scale tests to commercial production. I'll give you another. "Uranium reserves will run out in the next few decades". Actually - no they won't. Uranium is actually a very common element, but normally found in very low concentrations - eg in seawater. Extraction is purely an engineering problem, easily solved if it becomes economically attractive to do so.
The issue underpinning most doomsday scenarios tends to be population growth. However, even there things are looking up. The geometric progressions suggested 50 years ago have not been borne out - it actually looks as if things are spinning down. Sure, it will probably get bigger than the current 7 billion - maybe up to 9 billon - but the Earth can sustain that many people with existing resources. And if we really need more food, convert hundreds of square miles of desert in - say - Namibia into hydroculture greenhouses, water and energy provided by a mix of solar and nuclear energy and desalination plants. Need more rare minerals? Plenty in the Asteroid belt.......
I say - take heart, folks! Admire all the great things that Science has brought us, and all the even greater things it'll do in the future. As bushcrafters, let us revel in the information we can gather of the natural world around us just from sitting at a table talking to our peers, or reading manuscripts, satellite maps etc etc etc.. Let us rejoice that - if we so desire - we can actually fly off to all these wonderful places and explore them for ourselves, supported by the very best science - and generations of experience from our ancestors - can provide us with. And if we have accidents exploring some of these places, let us give thanks that with gps, mobile phones, helicopters, on-site medics etc, we can be found and whisked off to a trauma centre to get our injuries fixed.
Last edited:
I think it's mistaken to see this piece as defeatist or negative, I think he's a pragmatist and is writing of what he sees as the evidence of his own observations. He certainly doesn't seem to me to be agreeing with the unabomber in any way; he states only that to his own horror there are germs of truth in some of what he (unabomber) wrote..............His main point seems to me to be that everything that we humans cause to change now happens so fast that the consequences, good or bad, are upon us before there's any chance to modify them............he's searching, as am I, to find his position in all this, and I think in the final part of the piece he advocates a standing back, a pause whilst preserving human - scale skills and strategies to conserve as much as possible of other life forms whilst forming a philosophy to accomodate all that life now involves.
It's certainly a big lump to chew, and I for one applaud his honesty in facing up to much that is unpalatable........................atb mac
It's certainly a big lump to chew, and I for one applaud his honesty in facing up to much that is unpalatable........................atb mac
Hi Huon,
Why should my signature prove to be confrontational and counter productive? From what I understand of the posts made, some do dismiss these views as doomy and gloomy, right? And I somehow doubt the man or his writings are looked at seriously.
Which will come at a cost; the consumtion of yet more energy, for instance, and an yet unknown impact on the world around those facilities.
You must be joking....
Yep, you have bushcraftbasics pretty much covered, Andy. Top job!
Maybe it's because I look at things differantly...
I believe, instead of looking for more fuel or raw materials, we should be consuming less! And we can....
Creating green gardens in the deserts? Powered by nuclear plants?? Extracting fuel and minerals from asteroids?? At what cost?
Creating bugs to eat our waste? By not producing waste we wouldn't need the bugs, which eventually might backfire on us and our enviroment. There's plenty of evidence of destruction of habitat and wildlife by the introduction of new species all over the world.
Why should my signature prove to be confrontational and counter productive? From what I understand of the posts made, some do dismiss these views as doomy and gloomy, right? And I somehow doubt the man or his writings are looked at seriously.
Actually the Aboriginals did live pretty well in tune with their enviroment. If you want bushcraft, here's the people to show it to you. It was the arrival of the Europeans that created havoc... as pretty mucg everywhere else in the world those days
Which will come at a cost; the consumtion of yet more energy, for instance, and an yet unknown impact on the world around those facilities.
You must be joking....
Yep, you have bushcraftbasics pretty much covered, Andy. Top job!
You can?? Just like that? Go ahead. Show us. I dare you!
Maybe it's because I look at things differantly...
I believe, instead of looking for more fuel or raw materials, we should be consuming less! And we can....
Creating green gardens in the deserts? Powered by nuclear plants?? Extracting fuel and minerals from asteroids?? At what cost?
Creating bugs to eat our waste? By not producing waste we wouldn't need the bugs, which eventually might backfire on us and our enviroment. There's plenty of evidence of destruction of habitat and wildlife by the introduction of new species all over the world.
I agree with you 100%. Very well stated, and probably more calmly than I could have done it. I get very agitated by people who spend their time behind a computer posting about the evils of technology while shopping on eBay for retro canvas packs made in the pre WWII era using child labor. We are in effect spoiled college children who sit in coffee houses (the local one, not Starbucks because Starbucks is too big and therefore necessarily evil), and complain about having too much, while daddy is paying $40k per year for them to do so. It's nice to have the luxury to loudly proclaim about how we should be one with nature while sitting at home all winter because your boots aren't warm enough to go outside.
Anyway, like I said, very well put. I'll try to stay out of this thread because I find that this topic gets personal fast as too many people assume without first learning, and talk without first thinking.
Oh dear, Ron - so bushcrafting isn't about learning what works and what doesn't, recognising the reality of any given situation, adapting to it and making the most of available opportunities and resources? Whatever would Uncle Ray think! He certainly wouldn't suggest that sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring reality is the best way to deal with any situation, bushy or otherwise! You wish we could magic ourselves back to some golden age where we all live in harmony with Nature (Although which Nature I wonder - the Jurassic, Cretaceous, Triassic, Permian?). But failing that, we're all doomed - doomed I tell you, Mr Mainwairing!
Personally, I prefer my pragmatic, maybe even optimistic approach. You don't like the fact that population growth is slowing? Check the facts. You don't like it that its already scientific fact that waste vegetable matter can be turned into petroleum via mutated bugs, or that Uranium is a relatively common element? Check the facts. You want "us" to consume less? Which "us"? Those in poverty in the 3rd world, who see how those in the West - and increasingly the East - live, and want what we have, which will take resources and energy? Or the "us" in the 1st world, living the comparative life of Riley? If the former, how do you enforce it? Come to think of it, if the latter.....how do you enforce it?! Never going to happen - turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas, given the opportunity!
We are where we are - the Golden Age of mankind is probably now, if you consider what Homo Sapiens actually went through for most of their 250-500,000 existence! And there is no realistic reason why things should not continue to improve without the Doomsday scenario of wiping out most of the population first before things can get "better". Sure, we've done some fairly unpleasant things to each other and the environment on the way, but we're still young as a species and things are better now than they were 100 years ago! And we have - or can develop - the science to make things even better in the next 100 years. I happen to think that we will..............
Personally, I prefer my pragmatic, maybe even optimistic approach. You don't like the fact that population growth is slowing? Check the facts. You don't like it that its already scientific fact that waste vegetable matter can be turned into petroleum via mutated bugs, or that Uranium is a relatively common element? Check the facts. You want "us" to consume less? Which "us"? Those in poverty in the 3rd world, who see how those in the West - and increasingly the East - live, and want what we have, which will take resources and energy? Or the "us" in the 1st world, living the comparative life of Riley? If the former, how do you enforce it? Come to think of it, if the latter.....how do you enforce it?! Never going to happen - turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas, given the opportunity!
We are where we are - the Golden Age of mankind is probably now, if you consider what Homo Sapiens actually went through for most of their 250-500,000 existence! And there is no realistic reason why things should not continue to improve without the Doomsday scenario of wiping out most of the population first before things can get "better". Sure, we've done some fairly unpleasant things to each other and the environment on the way, but we're still young as a species and things are better now than they were 100 years ago! And we have - or can develop - the science to make things even better in the next 100 years. I happen to think that we will..............
Similar threads
