EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Forget Shorter Showers: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change
Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?
Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.
Or let’s talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. See the disconnect? Because I take showers, I’m responsible for drawing down aquifers? Well, no. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings. People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.
Or let’s talk energy. Kirkpatrick Sale summarized it well: “For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption—residential, by private car, and so on—is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government [he forgot military]. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution.”
Or let’s talk waste. In 2005, per-capita municipal waste production (basically everything that’s put out at the curb) in the U.S. was about 1,660 pounds. Let’s say you’re a die-hard simple-living activist, and you reduce this to zero. You recycle everything. You bring cloth bags shopping. You fix your toaster. Your toes poke out of old tennis shoes. You’re not done yet, though. Since municipal waste includes not just residential waste, but also waste from government offices and businesses, you march to those offices, waste reduction pamphlets in hand, and convince them to cut down on their waste enough to eliminate your share of it. Uh, I’ve got some bad news. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States.
I want to be clear. I’m not saying we shouldn’t live simply. I live reasonably simply myself, but I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.
So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses? I think part of it is that we’re in a double bind. A double bind is where you’re given multiple options, but no matter what option you choose, you lose, and withdrawal is not an option. At this point, it should be pretty easy to recognize that every action involving the industrial economy is destructive (and we shouldn’t pretend that solar photovoltaics, for example, exempt us from this: they still require mining and transportation infrastructures at every point in the production processes; the same can be said for every other so-called green technology). So if we choose option one—if we avidly participate in the industrial economy—we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of “success” in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which we’ve grown accustomed, and the fact that those in power might try to kill us if we seriously impede their ability to exploit the world—none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.
Besides being ineffective at causing the sorts of changes necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet, there are at least four other problems with perceiving simple living as a political act (as opposed to living simply because that’s what you want to do). The first is that it’s predicated on the flawed notion that humans inevitably harm their landbase. Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. We can rehabilitate streams, we can get rid of noxious invasives, we can remove dams, we can disrupt a political system tilted toward the rich as well as an extractive economic system, we can destroy the industrial economy that is destroying the real, physical world.
The second problem—and this is another big one—is that it incorrectly assigns blame to the individual (and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless) instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself. Kirkpatrick Sale again: “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”
The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.
The fourth problem is that the endpoint of the logic behind simple living as a political act is suicide. If every act within an industrial economy is destructive, and if we want to stop this destruction, and if we are unwilling (or unable) to question (much less destroy) the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical infrastructures that cause every act within an industrial economy to be destructive, then we can easily come to believe that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead.
The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
279 Comments so far
Show AllDie for a Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappe and Conscious Eating by Dr. Gabriel Cousens are good comprehensive books on the subject.
Thanks again JHC. I've heard of the second book but the first sounds interesting.
I'm sure you meant "DIET for a Small Planet" by Frances Moore Lappé :)
"Diet for a New America" by John Robbins (son of the founder of Baskin-Robbins) was another book - I first read it in 1989 - reinforced my earlier decision to become a vegetarian. In fact, I came to know of "Diet for a Small Planet" by Frances Moore Lappé from John Robbins' book - where he praises Frances Moore Lappé so profusely for clarifying her earlier writing on "protein complementarity":
http://tinyurl.com/Robbins-on-Lappe
Thanks Jesus, excellent information.
JHC, I can see that the math is clear. I have even challenged people - suppose you are given a fixed amount of land - say, 5 acres - and THAT'S ALL you have to grow food for you and your family, and you'll ONLY get your fair share of fresh water. What kind of food will you grow? I haven't got the answer. Either people cannot do the math (input, output, waste, etc.) or they think that the reality in America, Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc. (that ignores historical acts of genocide, land grab, etc.) would suit everyone in the world.
Some seem to think that "farmers" are the same everywhere. I know from first-hand experience/exposure and from extensive reading on "Ecological Footprint" the finite nature of resources - what it takes to produce a certain kind of food. Sustainability and fairness towards a fellow-human being should be at the core of any argument. I don't care much for arguments that do not meet these criteria: is it sustainable? is it fair? If we don't care about trying to be fair, why are we even here posting on CD? Only one person has admitted that fairness has nothing to do with his choice of 'permaculture'. So, end of argument.
Then you'll see some talk about population. I agree human population should be reduced - but naturally, which will take at least a couple of generations.
And then there are those who argue that meat and dairy are " essential". Again, I know from first hand experience, it's not so - but I don't want to argue if an individual feels he/she "needs" meat and dairy. The science is always there - using the science is up to the individual, I suppose.
And there are those that invoke "mother nature" in favor of meat eating. How convenient? I can argue, too - that humans are basically "opportunistic carnivores", whereas our anatomy and physiology are SO MUCH closer to herbivorous animals. It's a very simple thing to prove - we can eat lots of plants - vegetables, fruits, nuts, etc., without cooking, whereas we can't do that with meat. And we certainly cannot kill an animal with our bare hands, teeth and claws. We can live on a vegan, or even a raw-food diet, but there's no way we can live on a 'meat-only' diet. We eat meat for other reasons - not because nature intended so.
And we are not even talking compassion here. Compassion is an extension of the concept of fairness, and when that is important, the choice will be clear.
I agree with this article. Some of the commenters here seem to be suggesting that we should feel guilty for not protesting instead. I don't buy that. Action is no good unless you know what you are fighting for. We need a fundamentally different society, a socialist society instead of a capitalist society. This intellectual understanding is the first step in opposing the system. Simply supporting different ideas may be lame. But how can people fight against the system if they don't know that they should be against it in the first place?
I think it's both/and...change from the top in terms of fundamental change in government and corporate power etc., and change from the bottom, i.e. personal changes which can generate a critical mass.
This is a ridiculous piece of...uh...writing...and would only have the effect of further dividing those of us here that want to see some fundamental change. I have read Derrick Jensen's "Endgame" and "Strangely Like War: The Global Assault on Forests". I was impressed, disturbed, concerned and of course motivated....- and it's writings like these that clearly showed to me that any real change HAS TO start with the individual, but obviously need not stop with the individual. While change at the individual level is NECESSARY, it is often NOT SUFFICIENT. That's really the whole point of this article, as I understood it.
But reading the comments, I could clearly see a hostility towards those that are trying to adapt their lives to the reality as understood by the individuals. Some seem to have been rubbed the wrong way by vegans, too. Either that, or they only want to make the changes that are "convenient". That's unfortunate. Some clearly come off as hypocrites and wannabes, and not too different from right-wing zealots. If you can have right wing nuts, why not left wing nuts, huh?
Discounting individual responsibility is exactly what sustains "the system", and manifests in macro-level dysfunction. For example, when some people pointed out that America's past actions had probably something to do with 9/11, they were attacked as "unpatriotic". Many of us here can see the link between America's blind and unquestioning support (not to mention the military aid) to Israel and the needless hostility it provokes in the Islamic world. And some of us can see the link between a blind faith of the evangelicals in "End Times" myth is used as a cover for support for the Zionist state. And people like George Bush could get elected because of these "individuals" to whom their faith is more important than reality. And a different set of "individuals" voted en masse, all the while imagining that they were part of some kind of major movement for "change", and elected Obama. Obama knew the right kind of things to say to appeal to the largest number of "individuals", while other "individuals" saw through the hype and voted for Ralph Nader. Of course, if Ralph Nader has to win and bring about real change, he would need the support of more "individuals" who can think for themselves and see the logic of what Nader says and has done.
Joining a movement is the easiest part. Any demagogue can rally the masses, but the outcome may not always be benign - there are enough examples in history, so I don't need to list them. And there is always the danger of fascism and brutality in such movements if they disregard the individual, and it will be one more ideology to be torn down at a later date.
This article is based on the premise that political change has not happened because people are content with personal change and haven't organized as a movement. I would say it's not really true. Whether you are an evangelical, lefty, vegan or whoever - everyone wants some change. The problem is that they want this change to suit their idea of reality. Another problem is that many of us are hypocrites at some level - and this hypocrisy is easily exploited by the politicians and demagogues and the media.
And we are not up against the Nazis and the Tsarists - this is important to recognize. You will invariably run into those that want to defend their "way of life", their "faith" and what not - and they are your neighbors, and maybe even relatives. If you think you can mobilize, they can, too. But if they can see that you are an "individual" with personal integrity, there is a chance that they might consider your point of view. Of course, this doesn't stop YOU from joining up with like minded "individuals", starting a movement or whatever you think you need is necessary to bring about change. But ask yourself - wouldn't you want your fellow activists and definitely your leaders to practice what they preach?
Here's a challenge: Derrick Jensen is a radical thinker. How radical are YOU prepared to go to bring about a change and take down the system without brutalizing the individual? Beating up those that try to do whatever they can and exchanging smug remarks is NOT radical.
Thanks for turning on the light, Alcyon!
Jensen pretty much nails it.
As did Karl Marx. Marx was an _anti-corporatist_, not an anti-capitalist. Marx saw soul-less, yet, ironically, _immortal_ corporations as the _real_ problem. Corporations, man-made legal-paper creations, "exist" in order to acquire endless amounts of capital and resources. Corporations merely hire humans to do the actual work of extracting and working the resources. The earth has been progressively destroyed, the commons have been cordoned off, and ordinary workers "live" in an ever-diminished, ravaged environment.
Corporations need no air, water, food to "live." They merely require human gullibility.
Hence, CEO's (AKA high-priced corporate valets/bodyguards) hire private armies, corrupt governments that--in turn--tax the rest of us to hire national armies to prevent armed insurrection against corporate apologists.
Did the wonderful human beings who constitute our lovely Jeffersonian republic fall asleep in Econ 101 or History 101 when we hit the chapter on corporations?
According to the author it's not enough to change as an individual we must "follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned-Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States, who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity, they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them."
And how did they do that? He doesn't say.
He continues,
"We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems".
Read his criticism of the so called "lifestyle left" and of the actions taken thus far, then read his last paragraph I quoted. Seems to me that Jensen is advocating a violent overthrow of the system. If not, then what is he saying?
i think its just another way of scaring the masses.. having us live in fear.. in ireland , we were under the rule of the english for 800 years... one can only imagine what effect that had on the psyche of the populace.. we got used to doffing our caps, smiling.. for fear of a beating.. a nation gets used to that kind of thing.. then when they left.. what did we do.. create a nation of strong people? no,.. we allowed the 'church' replace the english.. after all it was all we knew.. to be told what to do.. when to do it.. even our government were under their thumb.. then the god damn celtic tiger came.. and we had a wild, wild party.. which is now over.. and all the worms are squirming.. and we see,.. finally see it was all a charade... our children werent safe from the religious.. the banks .. the government... even our health system.. has failed us.. simply because we doffed our caps in fear...
and now.. if we dont turn off our lights.. recycle our waste.. turn our selves inside out... we are lost.. while the big boys play.. and make money.. or whatever the big boys get their kicks out of ... i will continue to do what i do.. which is by the way.. vote.. take care of my own corner.. do what keeps my world safe and as healthy as i can...there will be a ripple effect. but i will not be afraid... or listen to the doomsayers... i, will not allow it... not for me.
Wow fabulous conversation here. It is part of the solution.
I find Derrick Jensen's writing depressing. It leads me to a place where I run around in circles not sure what to do. So I set him side but remember what his point is... something has to happen and soon probably.
Everyone here has lots of suggestions with some strong advocates for their positions. Pushing to get others on their side. Less criticism is better. Acceptance of others point of view better even if you do not wish to travel that road.
I don't think it is about sides but moderation. Each does what they can to effect change personally. They gain from that personally but it also helps others. To not buy what they sell is a small step in a journey of a thousand steps. The vortex it creates sucks others along.
But the personal will not as Jensen points out do the trick. The mass attack on injustice, inequality and corporate control has to happen also. Here each must do all they can to push for what they feel in themselves is right to do. Some don't eat meat some feel they must. It's not right or wrong. Some feel non-violence is the answer and in the past sometimes that has been met with violence. Some feel that violent overthrow is the only answer.
It will happen when each of us stop thinking about it and do all we feel we can in actions whatever our ideology drives us to do. Our individual ideologies may never be fully accomplished but overall we will move forward in the right direction. Democracy provides the solution.The moderation of all view points.
CommonDreams is a terrific outlet but this is a great discussion that needs expanding beyond this one source. Democracy now and local radio stations are other outlets.
Thank you all for participating in this much needed change.
Well the best way to answer the question of what to do is to think it through. So one first changes the light bulbs, and waits to see if that fixes the world. No? So one does a bunch more changes, moving toward a completely simple lifestyle. Did that fix the world? No? Well, it surely inspired some others, maybe a few, maybe more. Then one realizes that the more one discusses/debates things with people the more the simple lifestyle can be promoted, and one sees more and more how one benefits when others also adopt the simple lifestyle. Then everyone starts to see how this community forms and people are creating local unique culture, tradition, and legacy based on the simple lifestyle, and the more one looks the more one sees the benefits. This gets one to thinking more ambitious thoughts like starting a food coop, credit union, local currency, etc. And ah hah - political organization but why stop there? The local laws and codes, and the school curriculum, and yes, newsletters, radio programs, internet sites. And then a network of like-minded groups worldwide, people are writing books, music, performing, recording, making movies, starting libraries, schools, craftsman guilds, governments, all based on the values of the simple life, permaculture, universal justice, equity, rights/responsibilities for everyone.
Yes! And why stop there?
Abe,
Great idea about expanding the discussion to radio. Good news! Derrick Jensen is going to be a regular guest on a community radio station, WOJB, 88.9 FM ( www.wojb.org) the first Monday of every month at 10 A.M. CDST immediately following that station's broadcast of Democracy Now. The station broadcasts from the Lac Courte Oreille Ojibway reservation and streams live on the web.
I heard him on this station last week and it was an excellent forum to discuss these issues. Great responses from people and a discussion that has been long overdue. They welcome phone calls and questions. He will be on August 3---can't wait to hear this discussion in real time.
Onward!
Thanks Abe, excellent insight.
"Transcendent generosity is a state of mind. If I wanted to walk around the world, I could not
possibly find enough leather to cover the surface of the earth. But just covering the soles of
my shoes with leather works even better. Likewise, I could not possibly transform all bad
things outside in the world. But if I can transform this mind of mine, what need do I have to
transform everything else?"--eighth-century Buddhist teacher Shantideva.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. :)
Whew!
We've got some very deeply pushed buttons around here today.
Okay, here's my view for what it's worth.
1) Mr. Jensen is right.
2) People like me who advocate frugality as freedom will eventually be wiped out because we aren't bellicose enough to physically fight the predators.
3) I'm not going to change.
4) I DO have a death wish.
5) I HAVE lost hope in humanity.
6) The rich are destroying the world, not the poor or middle class. Jensen rightly shows that "it ain't us" whether here or abroad. All that stuff about the new age and lets get together and be nice, nice is propaganda crap to keep us blaming "the victim" instead of the elite bastards.
7) I don't live frugally because I save money or because I want to be rich or because of social and ecological responsibility. I do it because it interferes with corporate profits.
8) Soux Rose recently said she was praying for divine intervention. I am too. Nothing else will fix this fucking mess.
My analysis of our problems as a species which devours and kills everything around it is that the key to a solution lies in wealth limitation. If EVERYONE was prevented by everyone else from having more money than would provide for a middle class retirement lifestyle for the rest of one's life, then greed could be reined in, CEO pay would be modest, wars wouldn't be as lucrative, and there would be full employment. From there we deal with the thorny issue of everyday human rudeness, cliquishness, tribal and racist behavior, etc.
But for now we have to see the reality of what is trashing the world in the USA:
55% WAR, war funding, war bribes, war pollution, war attitudes, war job motivators, predatory society celebration (the elites), smile and wink at roguish politicians.
40% Non war corporate pollution through agriculture, transportation and gadgetry.
5% The middle and poor VOLUNTARY class behavior. This doesn't include poor kids become world class polluters in the military. I don't consider that voluntary as they have been railroaded into looking for a job fighting wars for the rich.
So the bottom line is this:
If you can't stop funding wars and weapons, bribes and predators and celebrating all this shit in books and movies as the american way, then FORGET IT. We are history. The elites, in their sealed domes with air and water filtering systems will last a few decades longer than the rest of humanity but they'll die too.
All this crap about the environment and saving the planet earth is like pissing in the wind. It's the God damned wars that have to be stopped first and forever.
And no, I don't see how we can do that. Sorry. I guess I'm a coward but I refuse to become some kind of special forces wacko killer in order to stop wars. I won't be like them. I'd rather die and I probably will.
AGG: Divine intervention is actually happening with an emerging higher global consciousness that recognizes the evil of the American Empire and global coprorate consumer capitalism.
Can we really 'reform' the world without 'reforming' ourselves first? What if vast numbers of people stopped being the 'good little consumer,' and become frugal, purchasing only [or mostly only] the basics (for example)? Would that not dramatically change the corporate landscape? Refusing to cooperate can be a very powerful action--or inaction, depending on how you look at it. What are we presently cooperating with that's negatively affecting both us as individuals and the world at large? Think about it.
Remember too that no violent or evil means can bring about a good end. And a quiet revolution is next to impossible to stop. No one can force you to 'eat' junk food if you really don't want to, psychological or otherwise.
Speak to them in the language they understand. Violence. Explosions. Fire. I want to see flashmobs 1000 strong storming a walmart at midnite. Hurt their wallets. Break their cars.
Like his writing, and agree with 2/3's, and liked the comic book too! But he doesn't have to make a leap of 'do without electricity'...with solar panels, that is a one time extraction. NOWHERE near what daily 'burning' and raping for immediate gain does. Just in ten years of research, they are powerful enough to run my entire flat...a dense urban flat of course. heh. cuz we be working class. who do NOT use near this average you seen thrown about for all americans. Check out how much the US military pollutes daily..the ONE biggest single source of the planet!!!
..lets get to that point of no huge imperialist wars, no more famine....WITH the idea of saving the planet...
Kropotkin said as much one hundred years ago...social movements all over the world are doing it. Rising from the bottom up to create more democracy and to save the earth.IT has to go hand in hand, unless you are a rightist authoritarian marxist, or capitalist.
FIrst thing we should be doing in the USA, is organizing massive direct democracy only peoples' orgs. For mutual aid, some small victories, and always fighting hard and militant (non violently of course) to stop the wars (general strike for 3 to 5 days, not one day dammit,, and then do it again and again.. why is no one organizing it for May 1st? Well WE start NOW)..and starting to learn what BANK owned land we can sieze both in the cities and nearby, and start building allies and peoples to learn and prepare to demand we start running everything.
for us and for the planet......give yourself at least a 20 year battle...for some big victories...don't expect 15 minutes of satisfaction guarenteed....the people will reward you.
That's what I am doing....already am working with 50 people...in just one month of asking around and.....with a newspaper....lets see it snowball....DON"T rely on the web PLEASE. face to face democracy!!!!and newspapers...and....you know..people stuff....not just sitting TYPING!!! ANd be tough. and no begging politicians. People respect that. And then will listen. People are pissed. Turn off NPR while you're all at it too.
"Check out how much the US military pollutes daily.."
Where do we check this out?
"the ONE biggest single source of the planet!!!"
No surprise here, but how can we know if it is true?
no single source. I'm trying to write an article for my paper about the real facts...
but it's hard....much to google about how much 'fuel' they use, but other than
that...not one 'great' article that brings in all the pollution too...or one site.
Jeffery st. clair on counterpunch.org has touched on how much many US bases
pollute and how much jet fuel is used per base.
BUT I have yet to see any article that describes just a bit, how much it
causes in global warming due to constant bombardment, overflights in
the two countries we have invaded, and constant training flights etc.
As far as I know, none of the jets sit on the ground for long.
they have to be flown and tested constantly, and pilots are going
through constant training. Then there is the fact of even test firing on off war sites.
Not to mention, that most military
sites are poisoning the water supply around them all over the world.
I'm not belittling the human cost here....you just asked about it....
but no way around it....US military is the highest single source of pollution in the world.
how many bases with airstrips? How much do they pollute?
For an idea of constant bombing and strafing etc...
you can look at http://www.af.mil/news/...and look up 'air power survey'. ...I mean
just to get an idea of what goes on in a 'war'.
Unless. we call 'coal plants' an entity. You know what I mean.
How many US bases around the world (600?) with airstrips?
maybe that is a project for you!!!!
Great article, especially evidenced by the resulting discussion. I am a great fan of Derrick Jensen, and would encourage people who have been offended by the tone or content of this article to read some of his books. Nevertheless, I found this particular article patronizing and condescending. Of course, personal does not equal political, but it is often an essential first step. As someone who works with young people on a daily basis, I have seen many cases of a newly discovered personal power feeding a political agenda. I think Jensen succumbs to the same fallacy he assumes of others: that this is all up to us. In reality, we are engaged in a multi-generational struggle over the future of our planet, and we need to wake up to the fact that the education of the next generation(s) is key in how we look at long-term strategy. But I find Jensen's analysis in this article simplistic.
"the education of the next generation(s) is key"
by the time an enlightened next generation dissolves into the mainstream's destructiveness the solution would be very weak because the same people calling the shots today will continue to do so, unless we manage to stop them.
We're alive today and therefore old or young we need to do the transition, the biosphere cannot wait another generation for changes. If we fail the next generation will face the unthinkable in extreme disadvantage, and we may still be around too, facing full spectrum doom menace turned into a reality.
I looove long showers! Because it feels so good and I love to be clean. I usually get really dirty and work up a sweat each day. So long showers is something I indulge in.
And I can do this without feeling the slightest bit of guilt. In the summer our water is heated by the sun. In winter we heat water with scrap wood, as we have one of the only wood burning hot water heaters in the country.
And our water comes from the nearby mountains via melting glaciers. And all our gray water is directed out to feed raspberries, strawberries, wild rose, service berries, choke cherries, aspen, irises, peppermint and spearmint.
But I think the author is incorrect. Personal change can and does affect political change in many ways I won't elaborate on right now. Ted Markow, Jesus Hussein Christ, chessgame 56. Sioux Rose, AGG, Jennifer Bedingfield, Alcyon, zmann, azjoe, Rastaman, pjd412, xzorloc, Stone and others have made some very enlightened points here.
Should we fight or should we live simply? I think, both. I quote Bob Marley a lot, because his lyrics are so wise and relevant. So I leave you all with another Bob Marley quote: "Never give up the fight!"
On that note, I'm off to take a long solar shower. Then I think I'll bake a few dozen oatmeal-hemp cookies, write a few congressional representatives, and sharpen my garden tools.
No, no! You're doing the wrong things! Stop, now! No more cookies! Cookies are bad for universal balance! They're...
Oh wait, it's not cookies that are bad for universal balance, it's congressional representatives.
Never mind.
Derrick Jensen is totally right, and if you try to argue with him you will not get anywhere because the Earth really is finite, and cannot be heedlessly exploited forever. it's already mortally wounded from industrial civ/ capital/ consumerism, and the whole system must be stopped if the Earth is to be saved.
somewhere maybe in Endgame he says we are like an occupied country. i think this is a useful model to start from. it also implies some serious resistance movement, which i believe is what is needed.
don't ask me how to get the citizens aroused enough to do this.they seem to be in a coma.
Heyduke Lives!
I agree that Jensen doesn't overstate the case against our system, the rule by, for and of the rich. The public has a sense that it is complicit in the rape of the earth and the exploitation of the poor. Many Americans want to keep doing it out of fear of retribution if we lose our drive to conquer and our military edge. They also fear being shamed, which they feel they would be if their oppressive system failed; so full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes! Some, not all, of these folks advocate total genocide of Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans. I've undergone the shock and awe of listening to their insane pronunciamentos.
Hunger of the chronic kind looms for us Americans. When it takes hold of the people, there will be blood. But I have hopes of a positive outcome because so many of us are sounding the alarm in so many ways that when the tipping point comes, enough of us will know the changes that must be made and have the strength to realize them -- maybe even quite bloodlessly.
Well said! And that coma you speak of is exactly the result of this endless system of mind games played against us on a daily basis. It's no wonder Americans are "depressed" or whatever the latest psychosomatic illness is. This system is more insidious than anything I could have ever imagined in my youthful days as a Das Capital reader. Marx talks a lot about "reification" -- the use of ideology to rearrange people's ways of thinking, until they are unable to understand that they have the power to get rid of capitalism. Jensen is right when he says that the "powers that be" (I don't give them the power they want, hence I tend to have a lot of trouble with them, but I sleep well at night and am not depressed!)will probably try kill us if we stand up to them. In the end, if this Earth destruction continues, we are going to die anyway. Painfully. Horribly. Us and all living things, which includes the Earth itself. So, better to die fighting than to die without knowing what killed you. I am happy to see so many people responding to this article with strong support. That give me hope that we will not go out in a daze, but in a blaze, if we have to go out at all. Sadly, people like us on this site are often seen as "crazy" by those who consciousness has been reified. But, that's OK, sooner or later, people will have to snap out of it, because capitalism's short sharp shocks are not as powerful as they believe. Onward!
I would like to offer a strong thanks for this article. Whatever the issue, when it comes to progressive solutions, it's all too often a matter of preaching "personal" choices and responsibility. For example, let's take health care. For an issue that isn't too hard to solve, we're all disunited. I know some people will argue that "We ain't got enough votes to pass single payer", "Obama can't do it alone. Make him do it", and all the other excuses. The feeling of powerlessness is what pits us against each other when in fact we should be united. If we had 10 million people protesting in Washington for HR 676, that alone would have been a strong snap to the politicians to pass the bill already. Unfortunately, the public is rendered too ignorance of what's really ailing them and made to feel "guilty" for not being perfect. I've seen some who have said that for all the hope and change Obama promised, he's making us do all his work that we hired him to do. They're right up to a point.
The 2nd and 4th problems remind me of the debate everyone got into on maxpayne when he entered the site. I know he was angry and nuts at first when some tried to tell him that his working for a defense contractor meant aiding the enemy. Eventually, I think we all realized that despite who or what he works for, he has to work just to pay his general costs and that it's not him who's doing all the killing but those using his work that are responsible. This is somewhat debatable still but since maxpayne has toned down and is willing to listen and learn, I'll give the lad some faith. This brings us back to what I said earlier about the politicians. Obama and the Congress hold the power to do what most of us can't do. Since they have the power and not the individuals, it makes no sense to shift the burden of responsibility to the taxpayers. The politicians have a duty to complete and promises to uphold. You wouldn't rehire someone who making a huge mess in your company so why keep reelecting the same people who continue the mess? I have some more to say but I'm gettin' tired here so maybe I'll have more to say tomorrow.
Great article Mr. Jensen, PROVOCATIVE- good food for thought. Excellent posts! Hats off- good job people!
Yes, thanks to the CD community for some sanity in the age of confusion, disinformation and fear.
I remember sometime back around the invasion of Iraq (Feb 03?) when things were really dark and many of us antiwar demonstrators would almost get attacked by people in the crowd (there is a lot of military here in Honolulu) with many swearing at us and giving us the finger. Some of my fellow demonstrators used to get really angry and what to confront them but I would just smile and yell: "Yes, yes, express yourself. That's what democracy is all about!"
Well one night I tried to tune into CD and there was nothing there. A shock of fear went through me and I thought they must be starting the purge. I always maintained in a budding fascist state, there is a fairly short, open window of opportunity to speak out and try and reverse the trend but then after a certain period all decent will get the iron fist treatment. Then you must either shut up and secret yourself, become a revolutionary (in physical action) or if possible just get the hell out of the country. I being older would opt for the later and by the way, have some money stashed in Canada for said eventuality.
Well the next day I was so relieved to find that it was just some kind of repair or update service work and I wouldn't be going to the gas cambers after all.
Thanks CD for being there on so many days over these crazy times and thanks for all the madly sane individuals who contribute to finding the truth through open dialogue.
As a long-time activist, I agree with Jensen's perspective, and my best friend (who is a teacher, attempting to educate teenagers about the choices we make) was annoyed by the article's cynical tone.
I believe that the personal choices we make to live healthier and more conscious lives are worthwhile, and can have significant impact. Not enough impact, given the entrenched nature of corporate power. I think rather than an "either/or" of activism/personal lifestyle choices, efforts on both fronts are worthwhile, and necessary. If we activists are living vibrant and joyous lives consuming less, we provide examples that others will want to emulate.
And, there's always a danger in asserting that one's notions of the best strategies to address the big issues are the Correct ones-- we'll need a variety of strategies on many fronts to reach our goals, and it's probably a good idea not to ridicule our natural allies who don't see things exactly the same way we do.
This author obviously hasn't thought things through. When everyone takes individual responsibility for improving the society then umm duh, my pet goat can even figure out that that's a herd moving in the right direction. What is it about this the author doesn't get? All the rest of the progressives know that change starts at the grass roots. My guess is that DLC/AIPAC are paying both him and Orion to push garbage.
People that defend baking cookies, the messianic sum of personal choices, sending letters to reps, those things are alright but are also getting almost nowhere. Walk about in the world, we still don't see the rippling effects of these conscious actions. We see the odd hybrid making traffic worse so that the majority of internal combustion cars end up polluting more. In the meantime mountain removal, tar sands, industrial fishing and all the other nasties continue unabated.
Keep making good personal choices but see them for what they are: one among many that are worse, do them because is the moral thing to do but not thinking that you're changing the world cause' it's just not so. We're told to be patient and hopeful but we always have to wonder who benefits from our patience.
We ought to find real strategies that work, and soon.
Having criticized this article first, I want to make this clarification - individual change/action is NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT. Having read Derrick Jensen's books, I have to say, I agree with him on the need for a radical change - maybe "the system" does need to go. But again, it's not so simple - because, those who benefit somewhat (or at least think they do) from the system are going to defend it by defending "their lifestyle". Although it's very much a class issue, the fight would most likely be between neighbors and your fellow-citizens - as in the case of abortion and anti-war issues.
Also, like 'The Socialist' pointed out, "Action is no good unless you know what you are fighting for. ...This intellectual understanding is the first step in opposing the system." We don't need to become experts in environmental and economic issues - but we should at least be capable of recognizing those that understand and are committed to fight for the common good. The fact that people like McKinney, Nader and Kucinich did not get elected clearly shows that the message didn't get through to enough of the people. Of course, Obama had the money - but he also made the right speeches, and made sure didn't offend too many people. He even had to renounce his pastor and got attacked for his "guns and religion" remarks. What this shows is that you are not going to get that many supporters for your cause if you cannot get your message across.
Also, it's no good to get stuck on labels. Case in point: Ron Paul. I don't think all those who supported him in 2008 were libertarians - my guess is that these were people who were impressed by his stand on the Fed and the American empire. He got the largest contributions (among Repub's) from U.S. service men and women - and so did Obama on the Dem. side. While Obama's supporters may be regretting, I don't think Ron Paul's supporters are. I don't know if Ralph Nader will run in 2012, but Dennis Kucinich has made it known that he will. Maybe there will be others who are better. Of course, before 2012, there is 2010. So, even if the system cannot be taken down, there is a chance to overhaul it. For that, yes, I agree there needs to be more than just individual change. But there's no substitute for educating ourselves continuously. My request is to please read up on "Ecological Footprint" (of which carbon footprint is a component) and "Water Footprint" - because whatever change we are fighting for needs to be sustainable.
You're flat out wrong. For years I belonged to an anti-war group that ALWAYS chose Kucinich, Nader, or some other human-issues-oriented person as their first choice. But they NEVER vote for them - because 'they can't win' - although I stuck to my guns and voted for whichever one ended up on my ballot. (Last time it was McKinney, but I also supported Ron Paul, voted for Nader in the past, and always followed my conscience.)
The problem is that Americans want to be 'with' the 'winning team' - they've been brainwashed into this idiotic self-destructive mentality throughout their lives, starting with 'team sports' - as if being on the 'winning team' was more important than anything else in the world. So people DO know what's right - they just don't do it, because they're afraid of being 'one of the losers' - and the DFL knows how to play that game to a fare-thee-well, as you all know. All this talk about 'rugged individualism' is pure BS - Americans want to be part of the predator class - not the 'working class' - and will do ANYTHING to avoid reality. That's why most of them claim to be 'middle class' - although in any other country, they are just plain old 'working class' or 'peasants' - and resent being called such. That's where the fascists are winning the war-of-words - and will continue to do so, as long as Americans do not see themselves as what they really are: the lower class.
armybrat, I have to agree with you, even though you called me 'wrong' :) The point I tried to make in my earlier comment was that unless the "individual" can think for oneself and make the change in his/her life first, any kind of activism will be shallow and superficial. But you are right about Americans wanting to be 'with' the 'winning team'. The question is, what can be done about it - without an all-out violent class war? I have no answer. The 'first-past-the-post' system where the winner-takes-all is a huge problem - but I don't see any challenge to the system in my lifetime. But I do think (and hope) more and more people are waking up to the fact that they've been screwed by both parties.
You bring up the stupid identification and loyalty towards sports teams (fans,excuse me). Tuning out of this madness by more and more people will lead to a natural demise of this commercial monstrosity (I'm not against sports, just against the commercial aspect of it - because it promotes a certain mindlessness). When cities can cancel 4th of July celebrations, it's not far-fetched to imagine a day when the manufactured loyalty to sports teams will die off as well (I hope - but I don't want to bet against 'tribalism').
How about this: personal change that leads to greater understanding will also lead to more EFFECTIVE activism. Why? Because we will no longer be serving 'ego' (i.e., me and my wants), but that which benefits the whole. Primarily, we will help bring a better understanding to others, and their cooperation along with it. That way, any change that's brought about will not be through violence and imposition.
chessgames56, I generally refrain from talking about the ego, because it might sound 'New Agey' to some - but I did think about it in connection with this article and the discussion. Actually, ego is more than just "me and my wants" - it's a form of identification with one's position. So, while a suicide bomber might think he's doing God's will, he is still driven by ego - because he identifies so strongly with his belief. Same with the evangelicals or anyone that's totally conditioned by a faith or an ideology - including nationalism. Eckart Tolle's "The Power of Now" and "A New Earth" are great books to read. I totally agree with you - when people become less and less selfish, their actions (and activism) become that much more effective. The main reason that millions of people in India - from aristocrats to England-educated youth to illiterate peasants rallied behind Gandhi was because of his emphasis on personal example. He was not perfect - but still he could connect with millions. While his methods were non-violent, he was by no means passive, and his stubbornness at times was incredible.
Thanks for turning on the light, Alcyon!
Nanoo
In the post above this one, you mention tribalism. Have you ever read, "The Story of B" by Daniel Quinn? It's going to take more than a program or two, but a vision.
No, I haven't read "The Story of B" - I'll check it out. I mentioned "tribalism" as a form of identifying with a group - just for the heck of it, particularly with reference to sports teams. It's one thing to cheer for your child's sports team. But to cheer for a particular football or hockey team - where the team itself is "owned" by some businessman, and players are bought and sold or traded? I mean, I've been there, done that - but it doesn't make sense to me anymore :) But it seems to be part of human nature - to want to belong to a tribe. But loyalty to sports teams are totally "manufactured" - just so some people can profit. Similarly, most people identify with a religion just because their parents do - I think.
It is true that both the New Age movement and organized religion have compromised and distorted the original meaning of such words. I have a copy of both those books you mentioned. For Tolle and other notable teachers/philosophers, the focus is on personal transformation, not political activism. I think it is clear why: individuals comprise the collective. And a collective focused on acquisition and selfishness--well, you get the picture. Perhaps the 'authentic' teacher 'attacks' the root cause of all social ills, which is the individual who lives from an unconscious and self-centered state.
"We can follow the example of those who remember that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power,with as much integrity as possible, but to
confront and take down those systems."
Wow!!!! This is amAzing. This article rocks! Because unless we all get on the same band wagon, even in the direction of individual lifestyle change,plus get over the notion that we "need" all those consumer products and convenient life styles, THEN THE CORPORATIONS WIN AND THE PLANET LOOSES.