We’re all gonna die

So I read some more of Deep Green Resistance. I’m still getting through this book really slowly, even though I like to read, because it’s so bloody depressing that I can barely make myself pick it up.

The first half of the book is theoretical and the second half is practical. It’s the theoretical part that is depressing, and I finished it last night, so I think it will be smooth sailing for the rest of the book now. The next section will be on strategies and organization, so I’m looking forward to that.

The last part of the theory section is about other environmentalists and why their plans aren’t going to work. The main reasons are because they believe renewable energy sources are more efficient than they are or because they aren’t working to end capitalism. There is a whole detailed explanation of why wind and solar energy cannot power civilization, and how if you are not stopping capitalism then you aren’t going to succeed in stopping the destruction of the earth, nor are you creating a world worth living in.

We are going to reach the end of fossil fuels soon, and we cannot replace them with any other fuel without continuing to destroy the planet. Not only will we not be able to keep civilization going, but we will run out of food, too. When topsoil is dead the only way to make plants grow is with fertilizer made from fossil fuels. Our food system is dependent on fossil fuels, so when we reach peak oil we will also reach peak food. The human population is way over carrying capacity and we are headed toward widespread starvation.

DGR recommends reducing the human population by lowering the birth rate, which can be accomplished by raising the status of women. When women can control our own fertility, we have fewer children. It’s men who cause overpopulation by controlling women’s bodies and forcing us to give birth to more soldiers for their wars. Human males are the most dangerous and destructive force on the planet. They are absolutely not qualified to be in charge and they need to be stopped.

If we are going to survive, we have to stop capitalism and patriarchy. Unfortunately, all the progressive movements have been taken over by neo-liberalism, causing us to degenerate into apolitical navel-gazers who no-platform anybody who actually understands what is going on and what needs to be done about it. The ability of human beings to be stupid, incompetent and useless is just astounding. I honestly don’t have any hope that we are going to save the planet because people are too goddamm stupid to get their act together. I find myself feeling a constant underlying despair that I can’t do anything about. Being a member of the proletariat, and having no assets, I have to work for capitalism in order to earn enough money to meet my basic needs. Every day I go to work knowing that what I’m doing is pointless because the whole system is going down anyway,  but I have to pretend like everything is normal so no one thinks I’m a crazy person. In fact, I am completely crazy and should be wearing a tin foil hat.

It feels like being in the zombie apocalypse, honestly. I’m surrounded by drooling idiots stumbling around consuming everything in their path with no awareness whatsoever of what’s going on around them. When I meet people who are still alive and not turned into zombies, I’m overjoyed!

I’m not going to turn into a zombie. I’m going to keep my eyes and ears open and pay attention to what is going on and do whatever I can to help the resistance movement. I will not go down without a fight.

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “We’re all gonna die

  1. I understand.

    I would like to think that there are many of us reaching this point.

    How we all go about realizing communities that have balance and hopefully sustainability as well? I for one would love to see womyn’s communes spring up.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. “Too stupid” and too disrespectful. Our culture has become a culture without respect or empathy. We have little to no connection to each other or to the earth. Without that connection, we can abuse and exploit ourselves, one another and nature into oblivion. When the world explodes (or implodes), I just pray I’m at the epicenter.
    We should form a resistance group that battles zombies and lives removed from society!

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Population control efforts of the sixties and seventies were largely useless. Coercion pretty much results in no contraceptive use at all because women cannot demand it, or the worse result of sex selective abortion and female infanticide. This was most evident in China and India with their iron fist policies, but US backed plans had similar results in Africa and Asia.

    High literacy among girls reduces birth rate. Women controlling capital reduces the birth rate. Contraception does not do that much, and sterilization is usually applied abusively. Financial power and knowledge matter more than contraception.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Back in the seventies some of the kickass feminists we had then learned to give each other suction abortions and published instructions. Sounds kind of dodgy but there is no reason control of early term abortions and menstrual extractions cannot be managed by women without patriarchal interference. Indeed a central aspect of feminism has been described as the struggle to control who gets born. Men would like to have a say in that, understandably, but their track record in these matters has been less than stellar.

      You are correct about women’s status. If you live in a culture that only grants women status and access to work and other activities in relation to their association with men and families, that is a huge influence. Just keeping girls in school does a lot to slow down birthrates.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. The problem with wind and solar is they are still extractive based technologies and have lifespans. You don’t just replace everything with wind turbines and solar panels and then they last forever. Rare earth mines are terribly toxic places.

    We’re actually not running out of fossil fuels, unfortunately. There is still enough coal and tar sands oil around to send the whole place into Venus-like climate conditions. What we are facing the end of is cheap oil. Since oil is transportable energy, and batteries have their limitations, what this will effect to a great extent is transportation, which in turn wreaks havoc with how we roll as a culture. If the USA was smart they’d buy up all the cheap oil from everyone they can find and save theirs as money in the bank. Though burning it is insane, or making disposable packaging out of it, people are going to miss the demise of other plastic-based technologies. But I guess there will be a lot of containers around to mine from the landfills for a long time, though we’ll likely be stuck with glass.

    Yes, it has been argued that with a small enough population it wouldn’t matter how humans culture operates. Mostly by white men. I do get irritated at people who criticize women for having children, as men cause the whole problem by mandating childbearing in various ways both direct and subtle. And they have a choice in impregnating women, there are ways to keep from doing that, and when they argue they just can’t help themselves, then one must ask why we keep so many of these dangerous creatures around?

    I’m basically a doomer myself, but one life form that will do well with our new and improved climate is diseases, so this whole situation might just resolve itself in a most unfortunate manner. I have been wondering whether I will see malaria here.

    Also, Asia and Australia are on the front lines right now, just from heat. When you get temperature and humidity combinations that add up to the equivalent of 35°C with 100° humidity, this is called “wet bulb” and it represents the limits of what mammals can survive for more than several hours. Parts of India have been getting very close to wet bulb just this year, at I think around 125°F with whatever concomitant humidity. It’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature.

    Liked by 5 people

    • You are sounding like someone who grew up in “ahl bidness” (oil business) of the Houston area here. There’s not exactly such a thing as running out of oil, there’s just such a thing as running out of oil that can be delivered at a certain price point.

      The whole experience that old fields were re-opened and fracked for oil at great profit here in the US a few years ago shows this is true.

      However PSF and DGR are right in the long run. When energy prices get so high that nitrate fertilizer becomes so expensive that food prices reach beyond what markets can supply to the poor, it’s the end of any nation that suffers this.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’ve lived amongst the oil fields for 20 years. I agree with what you are saying, it’s all about economics, which makes a very good argument for political action against mining expansion, as the more difficult it is, the more expensive it gets, and the more markets are receptive to alternatives, generally speaking. A lot of the thesis behind DGR is encouraging people to get to know and work to protect their own personal landbases.

        Nitrate fertilizer is a terrible substitute for using animal wastes in agriculture. When you have a population dependent on artificial fertilizers, and bodies of water all messed up from runoff of both concentrated animal wastes *and* nitrate fertilizer, you’re doing it wrong. But one of the big problems with the culture is our obsession with sterilizing everything, our dissociation from the natural world, including natural waste products. Another is our disinclination to accept death as a natural part of life, just a change of state, not something to be avoided and postponed at all costs.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Well, you are not multi-generation oil kin like I am, but you been around long enough to understand. It’s gonna be about price points until the end. There’s tons of oil. it just matters how much you wanna pay for it. And at some point the price will be too damn high, I don’t know when that will be.

          BTW, I like the idea of your human waste reprocessing economy. Awesome low impact way of sustaining 2-3 billion people.

          Don’t know what it would take to get us there.

          Like

        • I said animal wastes, meaning human and those of any animals involved in agriculture. Yes, I think it makes more sense to use these as fertilizer than to dump them, especially when doing so adversely affects bodies of water. It’s hardly unprecedented.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. It’s strange, because I find DGR (and Jensen’s writing especially) really uplifting. Okay, so we’re all fucked and the world is being eaten by the closest thing to the aliens off Independence Day and nobody’s going to do anything about it, but at least other people get it. At least I’m not alone.

    I just wish there was something I could do, but I’m too sick to even write a sentence most days.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I read about half the DGR book and maybe half of Derrick’s other books, and got to the point where I got the picture and the rest was details and working on decolonizing myself. It is strong fare but I would rather get the whole picture than be living in denial, if only to bear witness. I really don’t see how we roll this back without a lot of people dying, but that is going to happen regardless of what action we take, for purely biological reasons. And it should, we don’t have some kind of moral right to consume the world and everyone in it. Unfortunately it looks like the first people to go are the ones with the least power, who cause the least damage.

      Someone I know once said about Derrick that “nobody can deal with Derrick Jensen, on the other hand, nobody can refute him either.”

      Liked by 2 people

        • At least the first volume of Endgame is well worth reading. People’s mileage varies as to the second volume. If you’re looking for something a bit lighter (!), you might want to check out “As the World Burns”, the comic book he did with Stephanie McMillan.

          Liked by 1 person

      • This is the thing. I would like to think that things would actually get better as civilisation lost its reach, in at least some places? Somehow? But realistically people are going to die and die and die, and from the bottom up.

        The thing is, it started long ago. Colonialism started it, and now we’re told there’s no choice but to keep going, while millions of children starve to death every year and as many again die for lack of clean water.

        The only sane thing to do is try for a soft landing, but nobody in a position to change anything (or rather, to lose everything) wants to do that. Climate change alone tells us that. So.

        Like

        • It’s perfectly normal for life forms to experience population blooms and crashes. What is not normal is for one particular life form to decide that the crash part is unacceptable for itself.

          If you want to opt for a less unpleasant alternative, it’s gotta be benevolent population stabilization of some form. I have yet to see an argument for stabilizing human populations at more than about 500 million that doesn’t involve ever-increasing destruction. This planet doesn’t work when you clear off all the vegetation. And if we stop mining and burning fossil fuels, that is all there will be left to burn. And if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels, the climate gets wrecked so badly it will not be survivable. Q.E.D.

          Liked by 3 people

  6. Also DGR tends to argue for ditching agriculture, which seems unrealistic as when it comes down to trying to encourage something to grow so you can eat it, or starving, the answer is obvious. I do think agriculture can, at least theoretically, be turned into a gentler and more sustainable practice, which basically means permaculture and minimizing soil and root disruption, moving away from annual crops. Lierre likes to argue that just restoring all the grasslands would quite handily solve the problem of carbon sequestration, but again, what do people do for food? What’s interesting about that, though, is how it indicates that the natural world is better at healing itself, given the chance, than anything else humans can jerry-rig with technology.

    And another way of looking at it is to consider how much control we really have over things, and how we like to overestimate that. Look at all the climate scientists constantly finding out their calculations were off by a magnitude. But no matter how dismal and out of control things seem, that is still no reason to give up caring for your landbase, whatever that might mean to you.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “… climate scientists constantly finding out their calculations were off by a magnitude.”
      The climate scientists are almost always off in comparison with the observed data, especially when they use CO2 as the essential element for the “change”.
      They don’t understand the Sun and, therefore, the Sun has very little importance in their models.
      That’s why their calculations never match the observations, especially for average temperatures.

      The problem of our society now are 1st. patriarchy and 2nd. capitalism (which is the way the patriarchal system found to make itself necessary into everyone’s life, by spreading the lies about its own importance).
      We need not to worry about CO2. It’s an important gas, it’s beneficial to life: the more the better.

      Like

        • LOL! Yes, I am, although I know this is not a very popular idea.
          I’ve been reading some “skeptical” blogs recently and I’m quite sure that CO2 is very far from being problem to human life, even if the present levels of concentration were to double.
          CO2 is very beneficial for plants, it’s one of the most important ingredients for their growth.
          On the other hand, the problem of *pollution* is very serious and real, and it must be handled and solved the best way that we can, and as fast as we can.

          Like

        • No one questions that CO2 is beneficial to plant life.That is a well-known fact. That does not, however, make it beneficial to all life, in all quantities.

          Sure, (some) plants will thrive in a hotter climate. Doesn’t mean humans will like it.

          Like

        • I’ve seen some studies that show that even if the present levels doubled, to 800 ppm there would be no important consequences for climate (and certainly not for human breathing as our breath has itself nearly 50 times more CO2 than the present atmospheric levels), but if you know of some important negative consequences for other (non-human) forms of life I’d be glad to learn.

          Like

  7. Um, sorry to flat out contradict, but DGR has not done their homework. Their notion that you can’t use solar + other sustainable renewables (+ efficiency!) to power a technological society is in disagreement with work out of Stanford (pdf1, pdf2). Their conclusion in 2011 was that we already have all the technology we need, that it would cost on the order of 1% of global GDP, and that we could get it done by 2050.

    The only thing we’re lacking is political will.

    And that last, I’m afraid, justifies every bit of pessimism in the DGR work.

    (I’d also agree that we need to have way fewer people on the planet, but, strictly speaking, purely from an energetics standpoint, it could be done with the people we have now, and then some. All it needs is the political will….)

    Like

    • You can’t argue for protecting your landbase and simultaneously promote extractive-based technologies. Derrick and other DGR people have and continue to look at the numbers on this, and it’s not as rosy a picture as is commonly portrayed. It’s mostly difficult to argue against because the alternatives are so grim, but as humans have a long history of wrecking things every time we come up with a new source of energy, I will continue to cast a jaundiced eye upon solar and wind, especially since new sources of energy don’t tend to replace the old ones, but instead people just use more energy. That is what greater efficiency gets you in an open market.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. “… I honestly don’t have any hope that we are going to save the planet because people are too goddamm stupid to get their act together. I find myself feeling a constant underlying despair that I can’t do anything about… ”
    I believe we’re already doing something here and other feminist blogs and publications (especially lesbian feminists) by bringing the empowerment of women and destruction of patriarchy as one of our most important goals (perhaps, *the most* important goal) in our understanding of the world, as well as spreading these ideas to the people we get in contact with, when they’re open enough to at least listen.

    As I see it, capitalism is just a branch of patriarchy.
    It’s the ideological element used by the present system to convince people that the present structure of lies and individual disconnect from Nature, and each other, is itself “natural” and desirable.
    It says that these values cannot be avoided because they are inherent to “human nature”, I mean to be competitive, materialistic and selfish, instead of supportive, spiritually strong and compassionate.

    The problem of capitalism cannot be solved by one person or a group, it must solved by the increased consciousness of all humans about the danger of disconnecting of our lives from Nature.
    The empowerment of women carries in itself a natural solution for this because women are not predators of Nature, at least not on the same level as men are.
    Women have a more harmonious perception of life than men, and less prone to competition, IMO
    Without competition (artificial rivalries) and lies capitalism cannot survive.

    That’s why the empowerment of women is in itself the *essential* (I mean, the *most profound*) solution of the present human problems.
    It’s a natural solution.
    I believe human society is “waking up” to perceive and understand this now.

    And lesbian feminists are the most radical, and natural, revolutionary people on Earth! 🙂

    Liked by 4 people

    • I think women are very competitive and aggressive, but when women display those qualities outright, everyone freaks the fuck out, so women learn to display aggression and competitiveness in different ways than men. If the mandemic ever happens, I think we will still have murder, crime, cruelty and even probably even wars, wars are about competition between populations for resources, among other things. We’d definitely have duels, that would the Saturday night entertainment. But would an a female dominated humanity be so ecologically destructive? We don’t know, I’m hoping we find out. Political situations of all sorts hasn’t worked in making humans better, religions been one big fail, one thing we haven’t tried is what other species have done which to biologically cripple the males to make them weaker or reproduce by parthenogenesis. If such a thing happens it will be the result of unintended consequences I imagine, can’t see some woman getting the funds to research it. Everybody gots apocalypse dreams these days, that’s mine.

      Liked by 2 people

      • “But would an a female dominated humanity be so ecologically destructive?”
        It wouldn’t.
        If women controlled reproduction, we would not have as much overpopulation. And a small population would not have such a negative impact on the environment even if it behaved in very destructive ways.

        Apart from that, it is difficult to figure out how a women-dominated society might operate, but that one woman wouldn’t have more pregnancies than needed to keep the population stable and the elderly well fed and cared for, seems self-evident.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I believe women’s aggressiveness and competitiveness are different from men’s because they’re rooted on different perceptions of reality.

        Usually women fight for what is a practical good, while many men fight to have power and control.
        Men have to control themselves to not try to dominate and oppress the discordant voices, while women are more OK with differences.

        In a word dominated by women, we would not fight beyond the reasonable practical issues, although the meaning of what is practical or not, at first, would be probably corrupted by the present over-materialistic view of reality. Then, probably, many mistakes would be done at the starting of such a (brave) “new world”.

        Men often base their moral values on *lies*, defined to create artificial rivalries and competition, that determine who will be the dominant voice over the entire “society”/group.
        It’s like *a game* they create to determine who will be the great “alpha male”, some kind of “god on Earth” type of creature.

        As a consequence they have created patriarchy, which is a systematic structure of oppression, and labeling of discordant voices, to create these artificial rivalries and conflicts, and therefore weakness of the great majority, controlled by a few.

        Institutionalized religions suffer from the same disease.
        No wonder Jesus Christ was/is called “the son of God” *and* the “son of man”.
        In spite of the fact that he was the son of a woman who supposedly did not even had intercourse to get pregnant, implying that “god”, the “Father”, is some kind of “male individual”! So obvious.
        All modern religions were created by males!

        Capitalism is just “patriarchy in numbers”.
        You give numbers to label the “value” of people and you have a system of control and privilege, based on bank accounts, financial assets, properties, etc.
        In this case the intrinsic value of human life – or any life in general – is lost, because only the life of the privileged ones (usually a male and his followers) is important.

        I find it difficult to believe that in a female-centered world this type of insanity would continue.

        The biggest problem of the communist movement, 100 years ago – I think – is that it didn’t empowered women enough to dismantle patriarchy.
        The male leaders of the movement were not sufficiently enlightened to allow it to happen, and it evolved to become a different type of patriarchal system, even less efficient than capitalism, and ended up imploding itself.

        I believe one of the (forgivable) mistakes of early feminism was to attempt to depict females as equal to males. This was a mistake, but we had too little options at that time.
        We’re not equal, but this doesn’t mean that the rights and respectability shouldn’t be the same.
        It’s similar to what happens in the racial problem, but in the “sexual problem” it goes much deeper.

        The empowerment of women as a unique and distinct leading force for the evolution of society, whose importance is manifesting more clearly recently, as a result of the perception of such differences and the need for change. Feminism is the voice and actions of the enlightened people who fight for or promote this empowerment in many ways.

        As I see it, the LG (“gay”) movement (for rights, independent self expression, etc.) is an important aspect of the empowerment of women in our times, because it helps to weaken the labels and controls of the present system.

        I believe that a society where women were the vast majority, like 70-80 % of the population (or even 100%, why not? As you said, if a “mandemic” happens 🙂 ), would be much saner and balanced than the present one.
        It’s interesting because I’m not the first person to talk about this, even if others have done before it and “changed their minds” later, the idea of a strongly feminine society is “in the air”.

        Now, is there any chance of this good fate (strong feminine society) to materialize for all of us?
        If we consider the present trend of fast change towards women empowerment, which has been supported even by some enlightened men, I believe the answer is *yes*, it could happen.
        We could see some important changes already in our lifetimes.

        Like

        • “I believe one of the (forgivable) mistakes of early feminism was to attempt to depict females as equal to males. This was a mistake, but we had too little options at that time.
          We’re not equal, but this doesn’t mean that the rights and respectability shouldn’t be the same.
          It’s similar to what happens in the racial problem, but in the “sexual problem” it goes much deeper.”

          No, I think she means ” the racial problem “, I think she also states that women are not equal men and that the (forgivable, very big of her) mistake of early feminism was the attempt to depict females as equal to males and that a similar mistake was made in “the racial problem”.

          wtf

          Like

        • I might have misinterpreted, I don’t know.

          I’m also remembering a line from Wrinkle in Time here, about not conflating “equal” and “alike” or “same”.

          Like

        • @donesoverydone By “racial problem” I meant racism, when it happens.
          I believe all people are essentially different from each other, but we all have the same rights as humans.
          I believe our differences are not a problem and to accept them is an important aspect of being human and creating a fair and supportive society for everyone.

          I really think that the equality of women and men is a myth. There are differences, but this doesn’t mean that they should be used for oppression and control.
          Men are experts in the oppression/control part, they have proved it for 6,000 years of male-centered society, everywhere – marked by wars and artificial rivalries, since ever.

          I believe that women, in position of power and leadership (not oppression and control) could do a far better job than men have done.
          That’s why I think the empowerment of women is the *essential solution* of the present human problems.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s