Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
life on our planet, nor how it operates.  It was about our civilization, and how IT operates.  Perhaps I should repost:  

Anything that can cut through the willful ignorance of this civilization is to the good.  

If you followed that link, you know those people had no "competitors" until some neo-lib businessman decided to cut down the (adjacent) rainforest for cash.  

Ascribing simple crime to "Darwinian evolution" does not impress me overmuch.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Wed Jan 2nd, 2008 at 10:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
those people had no "competitors" until some neo-lib businessman decided to cut down the (adjacent) rainforest for cash.

Exactly. Their society was sustainable up until someone with superior technology showed up and destroyed it. Explain to me why we can dismiss this (wars of conquest) when looking for ways to create a sustainable world.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 02:15:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Our civilization is murderous and suicidal.   Right now you see it happily destroying others, but in fact it is also destroying the basis of its own life.  The natural model is a cancer tumor.  Do tell me about the Darwinian superiority of cancer tumors who do--after all--manage to destroy all competition.  

It is unfortunate and sad when sustainable peoples fail to evade this Engine of Death.  For in fact, the continuation of life will be possible only if they learn how to persist.  Some may actually be doing that but here I hold my tongue.  

For those of us who are already part of this Death Trip, we first have to decide if we want out of it or not, and secondly what that entails.  It is all a gamble anyway:  It may not be possible.  But if it is, it is the one thing that would actually be worth doing.  

Our "superior technology" is a delusion.  Our whole way of life is a delusion--a drug binge that ends in the morgue.  

Don't you understand?  We have already LOST your Darwinian war of all against all, by choosing to fight it.  The bacteria in your gut are superior to you:  They will outlive you, and all humans.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All is not yet lost IMHO.

A little furry Corporate animal is busily consuming all the Dinosaur eggs. The partnership-based entities I talk about are emerging because they "out compete" the existing corporates.

How? Because they do not have to pay a return to "rentiers".

They surround the cancerous cells and assimilate them...

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 03:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]


The Fates are kind.
by Gaianne on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 03:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nitpick: the Darwinian war is only lost with total extinction, if much of the biosphere and 99% of humanity is destroyed but a population of 100,000 post-civilisation scavengers continue humanity, it goes on until the next catastrophe.

On a more serious note: hunter-gathering lifestyle is not sustainable on a longer timeframe in the sense that the rise of a technological civilisation from it is possible. Hunter-gatherers weren't susptainable on a century timespan because they knew the danger, it's more they didn't knew how to be wasteful on a scale that it didn't just affect fellow humans, but the whole of the biosphere.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 07:53:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
While I do realise you (Gaianne) haven't said this, but for what it's worth on the sidelines: from what I said, I follow that should civilisatio fall completely but humanity survive as hunter-gatherers, methinks memory would lapse, and civilisation would emerge again (maybe in 1000, maybe in 100,000 years), and the problems would begin anew.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 07:57:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some primitivists say that should we go back to paleolithic civilisation, returning to civilisation would be harder than the first time around ; loss of topsoil and biodiversity means agriculture'd be harder ; no more easily accessible  iron or copper ores, as those have been harvested ; harder industrial revolution as we are out of cheap fossil fuel...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 08:04:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I rather suspect that tells you more about them than anything else.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 08:12:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If there is a "next time" it will be without the oil and coal, which should prevent us from getting back to the nuclear age. Still, we'd simply be right back to the regional overshoot and collapse cycle through unsustainable agriculture and deforestation. There is a small chance of mitigating that if we manage to send what we know forward.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17
16 comments

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10
106 comments

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13
4 comments

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6
8 comments

Occasional Series