informage: Endgame?

Endgame?

Sean — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:48:00 +0100

I've been reading Derrick Jensen's remarkable book 'Endgame'. His basic premise is that civilisation is inherently unsustainable and if allowed to continue will destroy most life on our planet. I've also recently watched Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' that brought home to me the very immediate threat that we'll do this with carbon dioxide. Jensen argues that our only sane collective response to this destructiveness is to begin the task, through whatever means necessary, of dismantling our civilisation immediately. This is an extreme position, and as such the book perhaps isn't for everyone.

Bluntly put: Endgame isn't for those who believe that because environmental scientists have been wrong before in their models and predictions, they surely must also be wrong this time. It isn't for those who pick holes in the overwhelming scientific consensus wherever they see even the smallest opportunity because it challenges their faith in civilisation (climate change deniers seem more and more like creationists in their rhetoric to me every day!)

It isn't for those who think that pumping far, far more CO2 into the atmosphere than 650,000 years' ice record shows as a maximum isn't a problem, that melting glaciers all over the world aren't a problem, that already rising sea levels aren't really a problem, that falling levels of certain pollutants revealing that for fifty years we've been cooling the earth as well as warming it and now we seem to just be doing the latter isn't worth worrying about (of course we can't predict the effects of this stuff with certainty, we can't even predict the weather accurately any more than about a week out, for me that's not the point)

Moreover, the book isn't for those who think that civilisation's relentless and brutal murder of all life that stands in its path, sentient or not, is either in any way ethical or in any way not insane.

In short: Endgame won't help you become sane if you aren't some of the way there already; it's directed at those who already think that there's some extremely serious problems around, more serious than anything humanity has ever encountered, and that we need to understand why and what needs to be done to rescue the planet and its lifeforms from likely, if not certain, extinction.

If you think differently: if you are clinging resolutely to the faith that all is basically well with the world, bar some tweaks and minor adjustments, then the book will probably come across as fringe lunacy and will be of little value. As Jensen himself dryly remarks: if you don't see the problem "good luck with your career in politics or business".

"Endgame?" by Ami

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:07:35 +0000

Simon > Have you watched Logan's Run?

"Endgame?" by Simon Davis

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:52:55 +0000

i am interested in what a post-civilised society will look like and what technologies will continue to exist in it- with everyone accepting the enviornmental damage they do as limited and neccesary- unlike today where neccesary is a moving target.

"Endgame?" by Sean

Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:03:09 +0000

Ami: I think they call it a straw man.

The point is that existing and historic non-civilised ways of living are far more than a 'viable, fully-considered alternative'. They are a fully lived alternative which makes them far less fantasy than some envisaged geek-ogarchy or whatever. Jensen isn't romanticising when he points out that non-civilised human societies work in a way that civilised society doesn't. I've yet to hear one actual reasoned argument to the contrary, other than vague pejoratives like 'idealistic' and 'adolescent'.

"Endgame?" by Ami

Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:02:42 +0000

Sean > I still feel that saying: "We'll blow everything up and then people will go back to living like the bushmen" is more of an adolescent fantasy than a "viable, fully-considered alternative". Jensen owns a gun, and purports using it when his apocalypse materialises. Hmm.

Simon > This geek-ogarchy that you envisage: I like it. But geeks need food and water too. And computers run on electricity ... these are fundamental resources that we currently rape the Earth to acquire. Hall, even the creation of solar panels requires metals, chemicals and plastics that destroy the environment. Do you see the trap?

"Endgame?" by Simon Davis

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:03:30 +0000

Questions....

Assuming that civilisation is destroyed, is it possible to use certain of its inventions in a post-civilised society? (premise: this would mean accepting the destructive activities that make them possible, but only to the extent that make them possible)

The internet While it does enable the rapid communication (and associated destruction) of agents within civilisation; the communication advantages offered by the internet also seem to have begun a process of: a) de-civilisation b) creating virtual commodities that are many orders of magnitude less destructive and c) enabled communities (such as this one) to work together.

a) tele-commuting Can this internet enabled trend be seen as the beginning of de-civilisation, allowing people to work on things together, but from their own landbase, with all the positive aspects that this implies?

b) virtual consumption Could the consumption of virtual goods, like software or items in games such as "2nd life" be the precursor to more widespread and significant, non-destructive consumption? what are the limits to non-destructive economic activity in general and how would this be defined?

c) 'common idea' based communities / reduced conflict The size and cohesion of communities is in direct proportion to the effective communication within it. Internet communication, of the right sort (i.e. actual communication between people, not orders for Nike's between unequal 'partners'), greatly increases the cohesion of people and attitudes over distance. The strength of virtual communities, are greatly reduced without the internet.

For these reasons, can it be argued that maintaining the infrastructure of this technology is a good idea, even in a post-civilised society? Additionally, could it allow for a less bloody transition from a destructive, industrialised civil society to a sustainable post-civilised society?

"Endgame?" by Sean

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:52:29 +0000

psimondo You're right that Jensen's idealistic view of pre-civilised societies does not invalidate his central premise. However, if someone preaches the destruction of a system – especially someone as serious, eloquent, intelligent and well-thought-out as Jensen – surely they should also propose a viable alternative? (Because doing so would win them more support from those who are undecided or just scared of the truth.)

Psi and biobot: I keep hearing this claim that Jensen's view of non-civilised societies is idealistic, utopian or romanticised. Every time I hear it I can't help but hear an aphorism, a stopping meme. I've observed it come out as a knee-jerk too many times not to be suspicious. It's an easy way to disparage a view without really addressing it.

Of course Jensen probably does romanticise - it's hard for us to say because of the limits on our empirical sources concerning such matters. But, if our civilised discourse so hopelessly fantasises about civilisation's destructive and unsustainable structure; is it possible that the discourse is also as far off the beam about non-civilised societies? Given that our civilisation has performed multiple genocides against such peoples it seems natural for some distorted disparagement to enter historical record and conversation.

Basically put: Jensen does provide a viable alternative. You might not like it. You might think it would be a manner of life you could not survive - I'm not sure whether I'm equipped for it. You might think that Jensen is misled as to how it would turn out. But you can't say he doesn't propose an alternative just by dismissing it as 'utopian' or 'idealistic'. Those tropes are too easy.

Of course how this happens, how we move to living in a different way, how we step into another world, well that's the rub. I certainly do hope that global communications technology have a positive role to play, although I'm also aware I have a vested interest in that. I keep thinking of all the fossil fuel that's burnt daily to maintain and extend the global IT infrastructure...

"Endgame?" by biobot

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:16:48 +0000

psimondo > You’re right that Jensen’s idealistic view of pre-civilised societies does not invalidate his central premise. However, if someone preaches the destruction of a system – especially someone as serious, eloquent, intelligent and well-thought-out as Jensen – surely they should also propose a viable alternative? (Because doing so would win them more support from those who are undecided or just scared of the truth.)

But, yes, fundamentally (read: environmentally) we are screwed.

I’m not sure what you mean by “So far the only good things I can see about civilsation moving to sustainable consumption are…” Are you saying that civilisation is already moving towards sustainability, or that if civilisation were to move towards sustainability then morer people working form home would be a good thing?

Regarding your (wildly) optimistic views about working from home: Virtual existence can never significantly dent real life because (“The physical is primary” - Jensen) we still need to eat and drink and shit and build the computers and servers that the virtual communications infrastructure is built from. And besides, sitting in front of your computer - or existing in a virtual world rather than a physical one - is about as far removed from your landbase as you can be.

"Endgame?" by psimondo

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:10:16 +0000

p.s. for those of you that know me, I have MANY criticisms of various scientific environmental assertions. what jensen does is cut right through those by making very tight and well argued structural arguments.

So far the only good things I can see about civilsation moving to sustainable consumption are:

Increased consumption of virtual goods (like software, or even goods in virtual space like second life). If all consumption could be moved to this space, would that help? Is it even possible?
modern communication, Jensen argues has made planetary destruction more efficient. I would argue that it has also made certain kinds of human conflict much less likely. Where communities communicate, its much harder to generate the political case for wars or other state sized action. This of course only applies where there is genuine communication between members of two societies, not instructions from one to the other about where to send the next load of Nike’s…
Modern communication has de-civilised (in Jensen’s language) a portion of the workforce. Where people ‘work from home’. Right now this only applies to upper management, highly skilled workers, but might it not increasingly apply with faster links and ubiquitous video? Would it not be possible for people to work from their small communities and only commute for very specific purposes, thus being more connected to their landbase and less likely to fuck it all up. It would also potentially be cheaper for companies and the state as less infrastructure would be needed, less office space, fewer trains etc

can anyone think of anything else? i.e. any hints that modern civilization may decivilize itself enough to defuse the Jensenian inevitable?

"Endgame?" by psimondo

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:59:15 +0000

ok. just finished endgame v.1. I have many of the same problems with Jensen’s utopian view of pre-industrial civilisation that have been mentioned in other comments.

However, what kept me up at night was that none of those views have any bearing on his central premise: that civilisation as he dexcribes it, is by definition entirely destructive and unsustainable AND that we’ve entered an industrial global scale which has accelerated this destruction to unprecedented levels and on a planetary scale.

It worries me that I have not yet been able to find any criticism which would invalidate this premise, in fact it explains a whole lot of disparate observations of the western world. why pacifism and activism in general does nothing, why the western world only pays lip-service to the environment and why I used to care a lot more about the environment in my childhood than I do now.

"Endgame?" by biobot

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:35:30 +0000

coneilius > None at all. It is my theory. And it is certainly disprovable. Can you disprove it? What antithesis – and I mean substantiated, irrevocable antithesis – have you against it?

wwt > Jensen would say, “What’s so illiogical about that? Sounds quite pleasant actually.” And before you start ranting about people dying and oral hygiene standards, let me remind you

"Endgame?" by wwt

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 02:14:50 +0000

The problem with the current “global warming” craze is that it is illogical. Earth has a carbon based environment.

The endgame solution for global warming is to halt all societies at their current development level, halt all food/medical aid, halt all sales/use of petro products, and do everything possible to kill off 2/3’s of the world population and the agriculture and industrial infrastructure needed to maintain them.

For the west it means reverting to a standard of living and life expectancy of the 1800s, and for every one else it means stone-age subsistence standards and massive depopulation.

"Endgame?" by www.corneilius.net

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:50:39 +0100

Biotbot said :

‘Life procreates - blindly and rapidly. Yet this procreation is, under normal circumstances, balanced and ecologically sustainable. But humans are not “normal”. Humans are an aberration, and civilisation may be an inevitable (and terrible and destructive) consequence of that aberration.”

What proof, and I mean substantiated, irrevocable proof, have you for this statement?

"Endgame?" by Shannon

Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:38:54 +0100

Sean: I like your comment that "many Latinate languages don't distinguish between 'propaganda' and 'advertising'. " and would like to add that the words for "explore" and "exploit" are equally interchangeable :) In this 'nother/nether world to explore we'd better take care not to exploit.

"Endgame?" by biobot

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:21:56 +0100

Ironically (for a propagandist), few things (Buddhism and abusive parents come to mind) piss Jensen off more than idle debate because he sees it as inaction. I think we all agree, however, that simply blowing up dams is useless unless it is complemented with far-reaching agreement and grassroots understanding of the ultimate objective. Jensen would counter with his "all morality is circumstantially relative" argument and that it is too late for words. Civilisation is destroying our planet with exponentially increasing speed and scale. And while we twiddle and fritter, we're killing them poor critters [urk, sorry]. Whether engaging in debate is 'good' or 'bad' will ultimately be measured in whether that debate will affect ultimately your actions and, therefore, the physical world.

"Endgame?" by Sean

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:52:42 +0100

I don't find his comment curious, nor is it of necessity a criticism. I agree with him, and I don't think he would argue for a moment that he himself escapes the characterisation 'propagandist'. In fact he explicitly sets out his premises as the first chapter of his book, in order to make it clear what he is propagandising for.

It's interesting that many Latinate languages don't distinguish between 'propaganda' and 'advertising'. I think one of the most insidious and dangerous trends in post-Enlightenment thought is the belief that a writer can separate themself from their personal beliefs and objectives when writing. One main lesson of the good parts of post-modernism is that this is never the case, and we do well to examine our own conditioning, motives and worldviews when considering that which we believe to be true.

As to whether our ability to engage in reasoned debate is an objective good, or whether it is simply the one facet of civilisation that may save it by allowing us to work out we need to bring the whole edifice down, well I'm still debating that with myself!

"Endgame?" by Adrian

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:14:19 +0100

I like his definition because it is useful and, in itself, free of moral judgements like "developed" and "advanced" which, I agree, go above and beyond the call of definition.

But he prefaces his definition with a curious comment: "all writers, including writers of dictionaries, are propogandists". It is a sweeping criticism which includes, presumably, himself, and seems to arise from a belief he expresses later, namely that writing is a kind of modern politicisation of speech.

I don't want to criticise the self-evident irony of this (written) statement, but I would like to use it to allude to a similar paradox. Among the benefits of civilisation is the opportunity to participate in reasoned and pasionate debate with beings blessed with similarly deformed frontal cortexes. And the best part is, we get to use our civilised lobes to criticise civilisation itself. Like writing about the problem of writing.

This does not mean that civilisation is an unequivocal good, of course, but it does have its benefits. I don't know if the benefit of discourse will prove to be civilisation's saviour, but at the very least, it will help to keep us entertained on the way down.

"Endgame?" by Sean

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:35:48 +0100

Adrian: I recommend reading Jensen’s piece on Civilisation as the best examination of this term I’ve encountered, and a good rebuttal of the self-serving propagandist nature of the dictionary definitions. He defines it as “a culture that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities”.

Regarding “another world”: I want to believe! If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time for a wonderful examination of the possibilities.

"Endgame?" by biobot

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:56:36 +0100

Shannon > "another world is possible; in fact, many many other worlds are possible" ... my point exactly! But first we must acknowledge and understand the disaster that is our current culture. So that we can learn from our mistakes.

Sean > It's a complex issue. I think we need to examine exactly where (and when) civilisation becomes problematic. Jensen blames urbanisation, for the very reason that it requires external (and incremental) resources and (as you so accurately surmise) compounds the problem by removing us from the destruction of the "the land" and rivers, thereby sanctioning or at least allowing it to happen. But what would a sustainable society look like? Would we have to cull our children? (Jensen does - rather tentatively - refer to infanticide at one point.) I'm not sure if dismantling civilisation is the panacea that Jensen thinks it is. Yes, it is necessary to halt the destruction - the sooner the better. But ultimately I think we need to look at human nature, at greed, at ignorance and at our place in the ecological system. Only when we understand these can we truly embrace the solution, rather than have it thrust apocalyptically on us. Unless, of course, it is already too late.

"Endgame?" by Adrian

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:21:47 +0100

Can somebody please tell me what "Civilisation" is?

"Endgame?" by Sean

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:56:59 +0100

your assertions that "the Inca and Zulu were sustainable and didn't live in cities" are probably equally misinformed and unscientific as mine.

Biobot: Just a quick note that I used my power (probably dubiously) and edited my earlier comment to remove the assertion about cities, realising that I was plain wrong. I still maintain the Zulus were - and to some extent still are - sustainable in a way we aren't, and in the case of the Incas they were civilised (living in cities) and the exact details of how that came about are rather murky. Given that they only arose in the last thousand years or so, it's certainly arguable that they are interconnected into the 6,000 year blip of civilisation that began in Mesopotamia.

What did happen there? That's the interesting question. Was it really inevitable? Could it have been avoided?

"Endgame?" by Sean

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:51:41 +0100

Biobot: I'll agree that when we speculate about what non-civilised societies are like we are acting very much on faith as much as on facts - it's no accident that our access to real information is scant. I'll just say that the relative timescales plus our brutal past genocide suggests to me that other modes of human society are more sustainable and that inevitability is a belief not a fact. Our beliefs about the fundamental nature of humans are observer-biased - I'm recognising that and questioning some accepted truths. Are you? I don't know that what you say isn't true, but I'm not prepared - as a conditioned product of the most murderous system of human society ever created - to say that I know it is.

As regards an ecologically sustainable civilisation, I would love to believe that there is some possiblity there. However to argue that there is misses one of Jensen's key points: as survival-oriented beings we will protect the source of our life with everything we have. Within civilisation we get our water from a tap and our food from a grocery store, so we will protect them and the culture that supports them with everything we have. But this is a fallacy - our water comes from rivers and our food from wild nature. If we live in an non-civilised way - i.e. with and on the land, and not removed from it within cities - we are less likely to make this basic mistake and protect the wrong thing.

Shannon: thanks - it's important to stay in perspective and remember that regardless of whether we are optimistic or pessimistic about our chances of 'another world' it is important to make the right choices personally, and argue for them with our friends.

"Endgame?" by Shannon

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:24:24 +0100

Hi Sean, I liked your comment on convincing people to blow up dams:

the more that such measures are taken as part of a mass collective movement rather than the actions of a few the more likely they are to work and the less likely to be seen as “terrorist” acts allowing the state etc to lock down further….

I would add that the more measures such as convincing people are taken, and the more that mass collective movements reach an awareness, fewer dams would need to be blown up at all.

Not to sound too trite, but another world is possible; in fact, many many other worlds are possible.

Today I saw a t-shirt printed with a bicycle on the front and “one less car” on the back. Some might say that’s pissing in the wind. I’m still riding my bike.

"Endgame?" by biobot

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:18:48 +0100

Sean > You don’t understand my point, and your assertions that “the Inca and Zulu were sustainable and didn’t live in cities” are probably equally misinformed and unscientific as mine.

My point that civilisation is inevitable does not condone it.

Life procreates - blindly and rapidly. Yet this procreation is, under normal circumstances, balanced and ecologically sustainable. But humans are not “normal”. Humans are an aberration, and civilisation may be an inevitable (and terrible and destructive) consequence of that aberration.

You say that “there were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years of sustainable human societies.” I say that given another few hundred thousand years, the possibility exists that these sustainable human societies might not have been very sustainable anymore. If that sounds “unscientific”, consider this: if I am wrong, then the sustainable lifestyles of the [insert idealised non-civilised society here] were sustainable by choice. In other words, the tribal elders had a good, hard think about it and decided to live sustainably because they could foresee the dire and disastrous consequences of civilisation. If I am right, then their lifestyles were sustainable because they had no reason to change. In other words, their environment was … very, very nice. They got by. But there was no conscious choice to live that way. It just was.

“You need a lot more in the way of actual evidence/argumentation to convince me that the inevitablity of civilisation line is anything but propoganda to convince us we have no choice but to brutalise the world.” Okay, consider this: Jensen attacks civilisation. But why? Essentially, because it is destroying the planet. He is, above all, an environmentalist. But why are the concepts of sustainability and civilisation/urbanisation mutually exclusive. Can you imagine a ecologically sustainable civilisation? I certainly can. Again: civilisation may be inevitable, but its ecologically disastrous consequences are not.

"Endgame?" by Sean

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:59:15 +0100

...and I'll add that even if I accepted the inevitability of civilisation - and I don't - a few hundred thousand years respite from destructive civilised humans might be just what the planet aked for :)

"Endgame?" by Sean

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:42:45 +0100

Biobot, your comments seem somewhat unscientific to me, based on faith in premises you don't have evidence for. The San and the Aboriginals had hundreds of thousands of years and didn't become destructively civilised. Even the Inca and Zulu were sustainable in a fundamental way we aren't, and they both exist within the six thousand year window of Western civilisation and were almost certainly impacted by it at more developmental stages than we recognise. Remember you grew up surrounded by highly inaccurate and biased propaganda about the nature of the pre-colonised Zulu, and in general there's a lot of anti-Inca and anti-Aztec propaganda around.

There were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years of sustainable human societies. There have been a mere six thousand years of civilisation, originating in the 'fertile crescent'. You need a lot more in the way of actual evidence/argumentation to convince me that the inevitability of civilisation line is anything but propaganda to convince us we have no choice but to brutalise the world. The idea that our civilisation is an inevitable evolution of pre-civilised societies is a key part of that propaganda - there's little evidence for that as it's believed to have only happened once (hence the common origins of almost all human languages - ask a linguist).

The point is that Jensen doesn't need to suggest alternatives, the alternatives are already out there in history and remote parts of the world. If we hadn't brutally murdered the rest, there'd be far more alternatives to participate in. Apart from the moral crime that was the genocide this civilisation committed, it was a scientific travesty as we are left with so little to rebut those, like yourself, that in some weird nihilist leap of faith believe in the innate destructiveness of humankind because they've been conditioned to believe this by this culture that permits no others.

There were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years of sustainable human societies. There have been a mere six thousand years of civilisation. You need a lot more in the way of actual evidence/argumentation to convince me that the inevitability of civilisation line is anything but propaganda to convince us we have no choice but to brutalise the world.