Deep ecology
02 11 11 - 14:16
If you want to know why some of us are so highly motivated to restore culture as a dominant value, see this:
We believe that true ecological sustainability may require a rethinking of our values as a society. Present assumptions about economics, development, and the place of human beings in the natural order must be reevaluated. If we are to achieve ecological sustainability, Nature can no longer be viewed only as a commodity; it must be seen as a partner and model in all human enterprise.
We begin with the premise that life on Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, as well as the health and continued viability of the biosphere. It is the awareness of the present condition that primarily motivates our activities.
We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:
* The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.
* The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the drive to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological or biological sustainability on a finite Earth.
* Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology and science have wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.
* Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.
As our name suggests, we are influenced by the Deep Ecology Platform, which helps guide and inform our work. We believe that values other than market values must be recognized and given importance, and that Nature provides the ultimate measure by which to judge human endeavors. - Foundation for Deep Ecology
We need to re-build society around nature as one of its fundamental values. That won't happen in "everybody says 'me first!'" liberal regimes.
32 comments
Take this country. If you divide it by skin color, you get white people, black people, Asians, etc.
If instead you go by religion, you group a lot of the white people with a lot of the black people, against other white people (protestant vs. catholic) vs. still other white people with other races mixed in (Muslim), etc.
If you go by political belief, you get a different division; economic status another, etc. Buy it, it works - 02-11-’11 19:13
Since this whole "multi-culturalism" thing became a political tool, I haven't really seen how it's made anything better. America is more diverse, yes, but can you really say that we are any more united? I don't buy garbage - 02-11-’11 20:29
So now we're dividing races not based on actual differences, but perceived differences? That ends up being circular. "He's of a different race because I think of him as being of a different race."
"Why do we still have churches of different colored congregations? Are these groups who obviously donât look at each other as the same âdeciding arbitrarily which ones to pay attention toâ"
In that they're arbitrarily deciding to pay attention to color as the deciding factor, yes.
"Even in places where you do not have this kind of diversity of, for example, skin color, you have the same problem. Bosnia, Rwanda, Northern Ireland, just to name some of the most well known examples."
That's exactly the point. Groups are divided based on arbitrary factors. In the US, it's skin color, while in Ireland and Bosnia, it's religion, and in Rwanda, it's an even more arbitrary tribal grouping with no clear basis in fact.
"but humans DO seem hardwired to recognize someone as being different based simply on their appearance"
Didn't you just point out examples where it's not based on appearance?
"Since this whole âmulti-culturalismâ thing became a political tool, I havenât really seen how itâs made anything better. America is more diverse, yes, but can you really say that we are any more united?"
Well, compared to what? Compared to 1860? Hell yeah. Back then, black people were slaves, and Irish people weren't even considered "white"? If that's not arbitrary, I don't know what is. - 02-11-’11 21:12
They perceive each other as different because they can SEE the differences. Are you going to tell me that blacks and whites don't speak differently either? Even the preachers in said hypothetical congregations preach differently.
"Thatâs exactly the point. Groups are divided based on arbitrary factors. In the US, itâs skin color, while in Ireland and Bosnia, itâs religion, and in Rwanda, itâs an even more arbitrary tribal grouping with no clear basis in fact."
Yeah. Again, there is a difference. You seem to be implying that they're just imagining all of this. Perhaps you have to live in a place to appreciate how distinct those differences can be.
"Didnât you just point out examples where itâs not based on appearance?"
Yes, I did. And I never said race was the only way that groups distinguish themselves. Again, (and again and again) the differences are real. Ask those that actually live there. It's more a matter of how important you want those to be. Are they worth killing or dying for?
"Well, compared to what? Compared to 1860? Hell yeah. Back then, black people were slaves, and Irish people werenât even considered âwhiteâ?"
I don't live in 1860. I live in 2011. "Black"? "White"? How can "blacks" be slaves? How can Irish not be considered "white"? I thought you said race wasn't real? The Irish are white, look at 'em! - 02-11-’11 22:09
What I said, which you seem to basically agree with, is that people are differentiated based on arbitrary traits. The fact that the US does it by skin color while Northern Ireland does it by religion shows that there's no one trait that is the obvious way to differentiate people by.
In the US, black people and white people are considered different, even if they have the same religion, and in the South they often do, both Baptist, even if it's different particular churches. Conversely, the difference between protestant and Catholic is of relatively minor importance in contemporary USA, though historically it was a lot more
In Northern Ireland, it's different. People are considered different even if they look the same, if one's protestant and the other's catholic.
And you're last comment is ludicrous. Of course the Irish can be considered not white if race isn't real. Just like Santa Claus can be considered jolly even if he isn't real. I never said people didn't *believe* in race. - 02-11-’11 22:22
"The fact that the US does it by skin color while Northern Ireland does it by religion shows that thereâs no one trait that is the obvious way to differentiate people by."
No, you just said that "race is a social construct" implying that it's somehow made up. It IS real. That guy has a different color skin. That guy speaks Chinese. That bitch over there is a religious nut. Yes, differences exist, there is a whole wonderful, multi-cultural world of differences. What matters is whether we choose to fight over it or not, or whether we blindly follow leaders who manipulate those differences.
"And youâre last comment is ludicrous. Of course the Irish can be considered not white if race isnât real. Just like Santa Claus can be considered jolly even if he isnât real."
White is a racial term, designating a certain skin tone. The Irish have a skin tone that fits that classification. To call them "white" is a description of their appearance...which is real and noticeable by all who see it. That means that race is a concept denoting physical appearance. How then is this a social construct. the only social construct I see is what one chooses to do with this information.
Santa is a social construct, he's not real. White people ARE real. So are black people, yellow, brown, red... Real live jolly white man - 02-11-’11 22:55
"White is a racial term, designating a certain skin tone."
Case in point. Views on race are not always based on skin color, even when the words for those races are clearly related to color. It is a fact that the Irish were not *considered* white in the US in the 1800s. If you pressed them, they would say "well yes, their skin is white, but they're not 'white' white", or something like that. It may sound stupid, but racial classification always is.
"That means that race is a concept denoting physical appearance."
Again, obviously not.
"What matters is whether we choose to fight over it or not, or whether we blindly follow leaders who manipulate those differences. "
There we agree.
"Santa is a social construct, heâs not real. White people ARE real. So are black people, yellow, brown, redâ¦"
The people are real. The distinctions are real too, but arbitrarily defined and cross-cutting. I'm sure you are. - 02-11-’11 23:16
Are you aware of what year this is? I'm sure one day people will look back on 2011 and say how ridiculous our views were. Let's keep in the present day, shall we?
"I was making a distinction between skin color and race. Skin color is a clearly observable trait; race is not."
So this is why when someone is asked "what race are you" they will respond by saying "black" or "white"? When a police officer asks you to describe someone, he may get a similar answer?
"Again, obviously not"
No, obviously.
"The people are real. The distinctions are real too, but arbitrarily defined and cross-cutting."
You mean like claiming that, speaking in 21st century terms, race and color are not the same thing. Keep up with the times, Jethro - 02-11-’11 23:48
I thought you were interested in objective reality. Are you admitting that race is a subjective concept, whose very definition changes over time?
But if you want a present-day example, even now Hispanic people and Middle Eastern people are often described as not being white, even if their skin is just as light as a German's.
"So this is why when someone is asked âwhat race are youâ they will respond by saying âblackâ or âwhiteâ? When a police officer asks you to describe someone, he may get a similar answer?"
Look up the words "black" and "white" in a dictionary, and you will find separate entries for the color and for the race. As racial terms, their connection to actual color is loose at best. I think you know this.
That's why other formerly color-based terms for races, such as "yellow" and "red", fell out of use; they were too stupid to be taken seriously.
"You mean like claiming that, speaking in 21st century terms, race and color are not the same thing."
It's not just the 21st century. Race and color have not been tightly connected since the beginning of the concept of race. (Which, by the way, only goes back to the 1600s or so.) Keep up with reality. - 02-11-’11 23:56
No, I'm trying to keep the discussion in the present day. I didn't live in the 1800's. Neither did you. A social prejudice from over a hundred years ago is not an indicator of an Irishman's skin color. The color of his skin is.
"But if you want a present-day example, even now Hispanic people and Middle Eastern people are often described as not being white, even if their skin is just as light as a Germanâs."
I've never heard anyone from any of these groups call themselves "white". They certainly would refer to me as being "white" however. I wonder why?
"Look up the words âblackâ and âwhiteâ in a dictionary, and you will find separate entries for the color and for the race. As racial terms, their connection to actual color is loose at best. I think you know this."
So now you bringing actual colors into this. I thought this was about skin color. First Santa, now this?
"Thatâs why other formerly color-based terms for races, such as âyellowâ and âredâ, fell out of use; they were too stupid to be taken seriously."
No, someone decide it was offensive. If that were true, then I wouldn't be "white" and the other guy wouldn't be "black". It's called political correctness. I forgot they didn't have that in the 1800's:(
"Itâs not just the 21st century. Race and color have not been tightly connected since the beginning of the concept of race. (Which, by the way, only goes back to the 1600s or so.)"
Again, I'm talking about present day. Race is a term denoting the color of someone's skin. If it were not we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's 2:40 in the morning, goodnight Dave - 03-11-’11 00:40
I thought this was a nihilist website. What is this tripe? >-( EX - 03-11-’11 06:32
What does it matter what they call themselves? I thought all that mattered was their skin color.
"So now you bringing actual colors into this. I thought this was about skin color. First Santa, now this? "
Wow. So now, skin colors are not "actual" colors? This is new. So exactly is a skin color, if it's not a color?
"No, someone decide it was offensive. If that were true, then I wouldnât be âwhiteâ and the other guy wouldnât be âblackâ. Itâs called political correctness. I forgot they didnât have that in the 1800âs:(:
They were deemed offensive precisely because they were so off base. Asians' skin color bears no resemblance to the actual color "yellow", nor Native Americans' to "red". "White" and "black" stuck partly because the terms are more accurate, and partly for lack of a better term, since the two peoples are spread over such a wide area.
"Again, Iâm talking about present day. Race is a term denoting the color of someoneâs skin."
Well, I think I've proved that it's not. Skin color is only one of the many arbitrary judgments that go into racial classification. I guess I know what time zone you're in, then. - 03-11-’11 10:53
Tell me what a white person is, should be simple. But again, no-one can agree, some say Ashkenazi Jews, Armenians, or Persians are non-white, many other people would say they are. The Irish, Italians, and Poles didn't used to be considered white, now they are.
An ancient Greek might tell you there is only Greeks and Barbarians.
Does a single drop of 'black blood' make one non-white? An Apartheid-era South African would say yes, but many mulattoes, quadroons, and octoroons consider themselves 'white'.
Seems like race is a poor tool for classifying people since there is no consensus of what a race even is. Race is a social construct... - 03-11-’11 14:18
Obviously, there are subdivisions within each group due to the diversity of the Earth's conditions. There are also various combinations of the three groupings.
Caucasians are characterized, physically, by fair skin, eyes, slim, straight noses, and tall and heavy body frames. Southern Europeans in the contemporary period tend not to display these features due to many factors; one major one is admixture with dissimilar populations.
I could describe Negroids and Mongoloids, but there is no need. There is no racial grouping, or indeed any person alive which does not contain some mixture of these racial groupings. When a person's genetic origin is mostly from one of these groupings, he tends to exhibit the features of those racial groupings. This is evident. Head-bashing against a wall won't make it otherwise. Claiming race is a social construct is a social construct (Email ) - 03-11-’11 15:02
Are you kidding? They wouldn't call themselves white because the majority of Middle Eastern people are not as light as Germans. So maybe it IS a matter of skin color. Btw, when did I say that all that mattered was their skin color? Quote me, please...and way to skip over the second part of what I said.
"Wow. So now, skin colors are not âactualâ colors? This is new. So exactly is a skin color, if itâs not a color?"
So maybe "actual" wasn't the right choice of words...oh wait!
"Look up the words âblackâ and âwhiteâ in a dictionary, and you will find separate entries for the color and for the race. As racial terms, their connection to actual color is loose at best. I think you know this."
I then responded...
"So now you bringing actual colors into this. I thought this was about skin color. First Santa, now this?"
You used the word ACTUAL first, my friend, not I. I'm well aware of the difference between "actual" (YOUR word) color and skin color. It's a term, and we know what it means, even if it isn't necessarily 100% dead identical. Kind of like political terms like "right" and "left", or terms like "black" metal ("how can it be black? It's sound")...or how the Chinese have traditionally given a color to the four directions (north, south, east and west, by the way).
You said...
"âWhiteâ and âblackâ stuck partly because the terms are more accurate, and partly for lack of a better term, since the two peoples are spread over such a wide area."
Guess you sort of clarified that one didn't you? What was that about "actual" color again?
"Well, I think Iâve proved that itâs not. Skin color is only one of the many arbitrary judgments that go into racial classification"
How? I'm still waiting because you haven't proven anything but to yourself perhaps, certainly not to me. Race is a physical reality, whatever semantics we use OR what the fuck is an octoroon? - 03-11-’11 15:32
Maybe the average color differs by a small margin, but they're in the same range. Put an average German and an average Iraqi together, give them the same hairstyle and clothing, and I bet neither of us can reliably tell which is which.
"Btw, when did I say that all that mattered was their skin color? Quote me, pleaseâ¦"
Sure thing:
"Race is a term denoting the color of someoneâs skin."
I know it was 2:40 in the morning, but there's the quote.
"You used the word ACTUAL first, my friend, not I. "
Yes, I did. I thought it was clear that anything that was a color at all was an actual color. You're the one who says...
"Iâm well aware of the difference between âactualâ (YOUR word) color and skin color. "
Really? Then enlighten me. I thought skin color was simply an instance of an actual color, you know, the actual color of skin.
"Guess you sort of clarified that one didnât you? What was that about âactualâ color again?"
The point is that "white" and "black" don't necessarily refer to skin color at all, not even approximately. I've already shown you a few examples.
"How? Iâm still waiting because you havenât proven anything but to yourself perhaps, certainly not to me"
Well, I showed that the concept of "white" as applies to race does not always map onto the idea of "having white skin" or even "having light skin". I gave you the examles of the Irish in the 1800s, and Middle Easterners today, being considered not to be white despite having light skin. If that doesn't prove that race isn't tied to skin color, I don't know what does. You have yet to prove that. - 03-11-’11 16:43
An Iraqi or a German probably could. Maybe not you, seeing how race isn't real and all. Maybe Germans and Iraqis aren't real either.
"âRace is a term denoting the color of someoneâs skin.â"
Yeah, but that is not saying it is "all that mattered". THEY...ARE...TERMS...DESCRIBING...APPEARANCE...which is obvious on sight.
"Yes, I did. I thought it was clear that anything that was a color at all was an actual color."
Yes, you made the distinction. Here's your quote, whatever time it was:
âLook up the words âblackâ and âwhiteâ in a dictionary, and you will find separate entries for the color and for the race. As racial terms, their connection to actual color is loose at best. I think you know this.â
Perhaps you should try reading it again?
"Really? Then enlighten me. I thought skin color was simply an instance of an actual color, you know, the actual color of skin."
Playing word games? Are you a politician? Lawyer perhaps? Used car salesman?
"The point is that âwhiteâ and âblackâ donât necessarily refer to skin color at all, not even approximately. Iâve already shown you a few examples."
The point is, again:
"Itâs a term, and we know what it means, even if it isnât necessarily 100% dead identical. Kind of like political terms like ârightâ and âleftâ, or terms like âblackâ metal (âhow can it be black? Itâs soundâ)...or how the Chinese have traditionally given a color to the four directions (north, south, east and west, by the way)."
"Well, I showed that the concept of âwhiteâ as applies to race does not always map onto the idea of âhaving white skinâ or even âhaving light skinâ. I gave you the examles of the Irish in the 1800s, and Middle Easterners today, being considered not to be white despite having light skin. If that doesnât prove that race isnât tied to skin color, I donât know what does."
As I said:
"No, Iâm trying to keep the discussion in the present day. I didnât live in the 1800âs. Neither did you. A social prejudice from over a hundred years ago is not an indicator of an Irishmanâs skin color. The color of his skin is."
And:
"Again, Iâm talking about present day. Race is a term denoting the color of someoneâs skin. If it were not we wouldnât be having this discussion."
And:
Iâve never heard anyone from any of these groups call themselves âwhiteâ. They certainly would refer to me as being âwhiteâ however. I wonder why?"
Your ignoring points that I make and repeating yourself. I can do that too. How long you do you want to not prove a point? - 03-11-’11 17:05
And the reason why "red" and "yellow" are offensive is their inaccuracy.
And I suppose it's debatable, but I think "yellow" is a lot more off the mark for an Asian person than "white" is for a European. Skin color is only determined by one thing: degree of melanin, and melanin has only one color. So you can be more brown or less brown. (Or pink, since if you're light enough the blood has an effect.) But no one's "yellow" unless they have jaundice. European - 03-11-’11 17:08
Fudging much? You said it "denoted" skin color. If you'd meant appearance in general, you should've said so. In any case, that's not true either.
"Your ignoring points that I make and repeating yourself. I can do that too."
And in so doing, miss the point.
You objected to me bringing up an example from the 1800s. And illegitimately so, since the concept of race in the 1800s is as valid (or non-valid) as the one of today.
But then I gave you one from today. And your objection apparently is "well, they're really not white". Well, they are as light in "skin color" as Europeans. And furthermore, for other purposes, like the US census, Middle Easterners ARE considered white.
So now which one are you going to agree with? How long do you want to not get the point? - 03-11-’11 17:13
I did, many times.
"THEY...ARE...TERMS...DESCRIBING...APPEARANCE"
More "actual" word games?
"In any case, thatâs not true either."
Prove it.
"And in so doing, miss the point."
Like you?
"Well, they are as light in âskin colorâ as Europeans"
Which Europeans? Germans?
"And furthermore, for other purposes, like the US census, Middle Easterners ARE considered white."
So the government is an expert on race now? There is an example from the 1800's that you might find of interest...
"So now which one are you going to agree with?"
Your mother...you were a mistake. Fuck off, pussy fart - 03-11-’11 17:38
Which experts have you cited? Now who's getting huffy in defeat? - 03-11-’11 17:40
Instead of you I could say "thou", "thee", "yourself", "person I am speaking to", "fuck face", "retard"...
Instead of saying,
"Which experts have you cited?"
I COULD say,
"The government isn't an expert on shit, except as being a reference point for every web-footed tard who is looking for the worst possible example as a beacon of "truth"" Did you "nigger" comes from "negro", the Spanish word for BLACK? - 03-11-’11 21:48
or
to be sure
to be familiar or acquianted
to have understanding (or knowledge, or wisdom)
informed
to know carnally (see "brape")
to be informed
experienced
anything but a Liberal Clarification (to make clear or bright by freeing from feculent matter, to make clear or transparent, to clear up, to "dumb down" for assholes...) - 03-11-’11 21:57
Deep ecology is the whole way of life, the whole order. It requires shared values to work, OR IT BECOMES A HORRIBLE POLICE STATE. In fact, you have two options for government... either organic culture, or you need a strong enforcement system. Burroughs alludes to this in Naked Lunch. You can either have cooperation or control. Cooperation requires shared values, shared values require culture, culture requires nationalism, and suddenly we're back at a traditional government, but one that embraces technology, nature and a sense of wanting to explore the universe.
Too many leaps for most people. We will have to outline them in excruciating detail, so you can look up from your potatoes and turnips and exclaim, NOW I AM THE MASTER GENIUS DEMIGOD OF THE UNIVERSE, which will make you loathe liberals for being wrong, and then you will exterminate them because they disturb your ego, and then accidentally you will have saved humanity from itself. AIDS Victim (Email ) - 05-11-’11 09:38