socialist guinea pigs
Politics, animals, humour, and also politics.
-
Forty years after the onset of environmentalism, even the largest, most powerful corporations and governments cannot ignore the natural environment in which we live. By this, of course, I mean that they cannot ignore that most people care about the environment now. It is no longer logical to fight against mainstream environmentalism. So what do these powerful bodies do to address people’s concerns?
Do they change their business models to protect the environment?
Do they begin to focus more on ecological health than profit?
Do they even stop practices that are the most detrimental to the environment?
No, of course not. You wouldn’t expect them to, would you?
A corporation is an organization with a corporate charter – a contract that legally binds the organization to prioritize profit (or, more accurately, shareholder returns) over absolutely everything else. Corporations are legally obligated to do anything within their power to prevent decrease in profit – this includes lying to the public, destroying communities and ecosystems, and ultimately breaking the law.
A government is an organization of powerful people who were (in a democratic nation) s/elected from a slightly larger pool of powerful people. The populace is given a choice between several evils, and tries to choose the lesser. Governments obey the laws of neo-classical economics; a system that prioritizes economic growth over all else. In other words, governments are beholden to the corporations that keep the economy going. This is why corporations frequently get away with breaking the law.
So, in order to placate the general populace’s newfound concerns about the environment, corporations and governments must use something called greenwashing. Greenwashing involves advertising and empty promises about environmental sustainability.
This is all made possible by our ages-old unnatural anthropocentric view of the world. It is one thing to instinctively value humans over other creatures – for example, if I saw a human child and a kitten in the middle of the street about to be hit by a car, and I had to make a choice, I’d save the child (though some might not). That’s a concept that I like to call “natural” anthropocentrism. But then there’s “unnatural” anthropocentrism – the view that humans are mostly disconnected from the rest of the universe. That is where sustainability comes in.
Starting with the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 and Kyoto Protocol of 1997, nations around the world began to promise to fight for environmental sustainability – or, more oxymoronically, what they like to call “sustainable development.” This involves continued economic growth and use of resources, using slightly less resource-intense materials and technologies. The idea is that we can be sustainable and not have to change the basic tenets of our economic system. And while sustainable development policy proposals, most notably Agenda 21 (which came out of the Rio Earth Summit), call for support for sustainable farming systems, they don’t highlight the most important aspect of sustainable farming: a move away from neo-classical economics.
This is all based around a new model of economics, also known as sustainable economics or sustainability politics. It looks like this:
Basically, they took their original economic ideas and squished another thing into it: “Lets make another circle. And call it ‘environment.’ “
Without me telling you, what is wrong with this picture?
…..
Okay, if you must know, the problem is that it is not representative of reality. In reality, we are a single species that is strongly interconnected to the rest of the world. Our environment is all around us, whether we like it or not. Every molecule we breathe, every gram of iron, milliliter of petroleum we use, comes from our environment. Everything in our economy comes from the environment; even our thoughts and services, which wouldn’t exist without the resources we need to survive. We come from the environment. It is inescapable. So rather than having a tiny fraction of our economic system overlap with the environment, economics is a small part of our larger world.
This is what the diagram should look like:
(Not to scale)
But imagine if economists and world leaders actually took this view. Every action would have to come with consideration of the impacts to the environment first, before even profit. After all, if we don’t have a planet, then we don’t have humans, and if we don’t have humans, we don’t have an economy. Then would come the realization that we’re all interconnected. What effect could this possibly have? People would no longer be able to treat other people, or other creatures, like simply exploitable objects and labour. All effects would have to be considered. The path of least harm would be taken, after serious thought and consideration. In essence, our economic system as we know it would disappear.
Even deeper – we would realize that there is no reason to trust a bunch of powerful, wealthy elites more than anybody else. The elites would step down anyway, because they would understand the detrimental effects of their authoritarian leadership, and that they are no more worthy of leadership than anybody else. Our system would lose its hierarchy.
We would become anarchists.
-
Video reblogged from Social Uprooting
Derrick Jensen - Give me a threshold at which you’ll finally fight back.
Excellent interview.
(Source: socialuprooting)
-
Photo reblogged from Feminist/Lesbian/ Vegetarian/Atheist
Nah, we’d be more like head lice. Earth don’t give a shit. It’s the current creatures living on it that do.
-
Quote reblogged from Social UprootingIf your experience is that your water comes from the tap and that your food comes from the grocery store, then you are going to defend to the death the system that brings those to you because your life depends on them; if your experience is that your water comes from a river and that your food comes from a land base then you will defend those to the death because your life depends on them. So part of the problem is that we have become so dependent upon this system that is killing and exploiting us, it has become almost impossible for us to imagine living outside of it and it’s very difficult physically for us to live outside of it.Derrick Jensen (via cultureofresistance)
(Source: counterpunch.org)
-
Photo reblogged from Illusions of Grandeur
-
Link reblogged from The Fluffy Singularity
We do have an overpopulation problem. We also have an over-consumption problem, a racism problem and a blaming-the-poor problem. It’s not either/or.
With some things it’s not either/or. However, the facts remain that we DO have an overconsumption/racism problem, and we DON’T have an overpopulation problem.
The population growth rate is slowing down because it’s a percentage. If you’re driving a car into a wall and you take your foot off the gas, your acceleration will decrease. That’s not much comfort when you hit that wall at 60 mph.
We will hit the wall at 9 billion, as I already stated. This is due to the fact that the rate is decreasing.
So we’re going to hit a population peak in 2050. How does a population peak? How does the number of people go down if the people don’t stop reproducing? Here’s a hint: Europe had a drastic population drop in the 14th century.
Okay, I’m sorry, but…are you kidding me? Decrease in population growth rate is caused directly by decrease in population in certain countries. Take a look at what countries have a decrease in population. Not in rate, but in population. Many of the industrialised countries have negative population growth. Why is this? Is it because they were all hit by the bubonic plague?
A population is made up of people.
Yes it is. However, overpopulation isn’t people. Overpopulation is the myth that there are too many people on earth, and that the number of people on earth now is the reason for environmental degradation and starvation.
People are starving because of other people. The environment is being damaged by people.
Incredibly simplistic explanation. People can cause all kinds of things. People can destroy the environment or revitalise it. The cause of people starving isn’t the fact that people exist. It’s because the massive amount of food we produce is being shipped off to feed livestock and people in the First World, with huge amounts being thrown away. The cause of environmental degradation isn’t the simple fact that people exist. It’s because of our lifestyles, our economic system that encourages massive overconsumption to the detriment of everything else.
And yes, people with privilege are doing more damage than people without privilege. That’s really important and needs to be acknowledged. But overpopulation is still part of the problem.
Well, at least the first two sentences of that statement were correct.
Edit: Just saw the secret that started this post and wow, ugh. Natural disasters won’t get rid of the overpopulation problem, anyway, not unless there was an apocalyptic, planet-wide natural disaster and that would be worse than any problems that stem from overpopulation itself. The best way to deal with overpopulation is for the people of the world to collectively and voluntarily limit reproduction and to conserve and share resources.
(via varlandgear)
You’re right that people can voluntarily limit reproduction. It’s happening right now. Which is why I took issue with your statement about the bubonic plague. However, limiting reproduction isn’t necessary in order to feed the hungry and stop environmental degradation. It is, however, an essential result of empowering women all over the world.
(Source: socialistguineapigs)
-
Photo reblogged from How Am I Not Myself
![bythereins:
imanassspankme:
madamethursday:
[Image: A ‘post secret’ style graphic with words taken from magazines and other clippings, pasted together on a background of scenes of crowds that reads: “I am so worried about over population that when I hear of a disaster that has killed thousands of people I breathe a sigh of relief.”]
socialistguineapigs:
No. There is no overpopulation problem. There’s an over-consumption problem, a racism problem, a blaming-the-poor problem.
What countries are responsible for the most environmental damage? The wealthy countries, with low population growth rates.
What countries are responsible for exponential resource depletion? The wealthy countries. The US, for example, has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25-30% of the world’s resources, and contributes 30% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
The population growth rate is slowing down, and we will reach our peak in approximately 2050, at 9 billion. There is enough food produced right now to feed that many people.
People aren’t starving because of our population. The environment isn’t being destroyed because of population. So why are we blaming our problems on population? The only reason I can think of is to lift the blame from the wealthy nations, from ourselves. Treat people in the Third World like over-breeding cattle who can’t think for themselves. Force sterilisation on unwilling women. Breathe a sigh of guilty relief when a few of those cattle die from a natural disaster (that was most likely caused by global warming, a problem created by industrialised nations).
Stop playing the anti-PC game: You know, the one where you claim that anybody who suggests being humane and looking at facts is just being “politically correct.”
I’m glad some of you found solace in the fact that the OP feels the same way you do. Just know that that doesn’t make you any more of a moral person.
commentary
While I agree that over consumption is our primary problem, that doesn’t mean overpopulation isn’t a real thing. In 2050, 9 billion won’t be our peak it’s going to be where the ever-growing human race will reach unsustainable limits.
Huh? The UN estimated that population will PEAK at 9 billion. That means that it won’t increase past that point. We have gone past our sustainable limits already, and it has little to do with population. Take a look at the world, climate change, pollution, and environmental decimation. The first world has raped this planet dry.
I’m not saying that people in 3rd world countries need to stop making babies, I’m saying, we as a whole need to figure this shit out. Just like with all plants and animals, there needs to be something that controls our population. We have no natural predators left and our medicine is growing more and more advanced, so really there’s nothing killing us off quite like war and natural disasters.
Human beings are the only species capable of consciously controlling their own population. To suggest that early death and suffering are the only things that keep our population from growing is truly ignorant. Population is already DECREASING in the wealthier countries. You know, the ones where starvation, famine, and disease are LEAST common.
If our population isn’t checked, it won’t matter what kind of groovy sustainable eco growing system you come up with, man. There won’t be any room to plant because we’re all going to be living literally on top of one and other.
Absolute, utter bullshit. We can fit our entire current population into the state of Texas. Humans need little land per person for subsistence agriculture. Since we will peak at 9 billion, there will be plenty of room on the planet, just as there is now.
this shit bugs me out so much, shouldn’t we be living in space by 2050 or something? ….oh, wait. they cancelled the NASA space exploration program. guess we’re all fucked.
Yes, that’s the solution. Fuck up one planet through completely unsustainable behaviour and then move it to another. Or to outer space. Good thinking.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltxelnQb3f1r3u2ijo1_500.jpg)
[Image: A ‘post secret’ style graphic with words taken from magazines and other clippings, pasted together on a background of scenes of crowds that reads: “I am so worried about over population that when I hear of a disaster that has killed thousands of people I breathe a sigh of relief.”]
No. There is no overpopulation problem. There’s an over-consumption problem, a racism problem, a blaming-the-poor problem.
What countries are responsible for the most environmental damage? The wealthy countries, with low population growth rates.
What countries are responsible for exponential resource depletion? The wealthy countries. The US, for example, has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25-30% of the world’s resources, and contributes 30% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
The population growth rate is slowing down, and we will reach our peak in approximately 2050, at 9 billion. There is enough food produced right now to feed that many people.
People aren’t starving because of our population. The environment isn’t being destroyed because of population. So why are we blaming our problems on population? The only reason I can think of is to lift the blame from the wealthy nations, from ourselves. Treat people in the Third World like over-breeding cattle who can’t think for themselves. Force sterilisation on unwilling women. Breathe a sigh of guilty relief when a few of those cattle die from a natural disaster (that was most likely caused by global warming, a problem created by industrialised nations).
Stop playing the anti-PC game: You know, the one where you claim that anybody who suggests being humane and looking at facts is just being “politically correct.”
I’m glad some of you found solace in the fact that the OP feels the same way you do. Just know that that doesn’t make you any more of a moral person.
commentary
While I agree that over consumption is our primary problem, that doesn’t mean overpopulation isn’t a real thing. In 2050, 9 billion won’t be our peak it’s going to be where the ever-growing human race will reach unsustainable limits.
Huh? The UN estimated that population will PEAK at 9 billion. That means that it won’t increase past that point. We have gone past our sustainable limits already, and it has little to do with population. Take a look at the world, climate change, pollution, and environmental decimation. The first world has raped this planet dry.
I’m not saying that people in 3rd world countries need to stop making babies, I’m saying, we as a whole need to figure this shit out. Just like with all plants and animals, there needs to be something that controls our population. We have no natural predators left and our medicine is growing more and more advanced, so really there’s nothing killing us off quite like war and natural disasters.
Human beings are the only species capable of consciously controlling their own population. To suggest that early death and suffering are the only things that keep our population from growing is truly ignorant. Population is already DECREASING in the wealthier countries. You know, the ones where starvation, famine, and disease are LEAST common.
If our population isn’t checked, it won’t matter what kind of groovy sustainable eco growing system you come up with, man. There won’t be any room to plant because we’re all going to be living literally on top of one and other.
Absolute, utter bullshit. We can fit our entire current population into the state of Texas. Humans need little land per person for subsistence agriculture. Since we will peak at 9 billion, there will be plenty of room on the planet, just as there is now.
this shit bugs me out so much, shouldn’t we be living in space by 2050 or something? ….oh, wait. they cancelled the NASA space exploration program. guess we’re all fucked.
Yes, that’s the solution. Fuck up one planet through completely unsustainable behaviour and then move it to another. Or to outer space. Good thinking.
-
No. There is no overpopulation problem. There’s an over-consumption problem, a racism problem, a blaming-the-poor problem.
What countries are responsible for the most environmental damage? The wealthy countries, with low population growth rates.
What countries are responsible for exponential resource depletion? The wealthy countries. The US, for example, has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25-30% of the world’s resources, and contributes 30% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
The population growth rate is slowing down, and we will reach our peak in approximately 2050, at 9 billion. There is enough food produced right now to feed that many people.
People aren’t starving because of our population. The environment isn’t being destroyed because of population. So why are we blaming our problems on population? The only reason I can think of is to lift the blame from the wealthy nations, from ourselves. Treat people in the Third World like over-breeding cattle who can’t think for themselves. Force sterilisation on unwilling women. Breathe a sigh of guilty relief when a few of those cattle die from a natural disaster (that was most likely caused by global warming, a problem created by industrialised nations).
Stop playing the anti-PC game: You know, the one where you claim that anybody who suggests being humane and looking at facts is just being “politically correct.”
I’m glad some of you found solace in the fact that the OP feels the same way you do. Just know that that doesn’t make you any more of a moral person.
![bythereins:
imanassspankme:
madamethursday:
[Image: A ‘post secret’ style graphic with words taken from magazines and other clippings, pasted together on a background of scenes of crowds that reads: “I am so worried about over population that when I hear of a disaster that has killed thousands of people I breathe a sigh of relief.”]
socialistguineapigs:
No. There is no overpopulation problem. There’s an over-consumption problem, a racism problem, a blaming-the-poor problem.
What countries are responsible for the most environmental damage? The wealthy countries, with low population growth rates.
What countries are responsible for exponential resource depletion? The wealthy countries. The US, for example, has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25-30% of the world’s resources, and contributes 30% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
The population growth rate is slowing down, and we will reach our peak in approximately 2050, at 9 billion. There is enough food produced right now to feed that many people.
People aren’t starving because of our population. The environment isn’t being destroyed because of population. So why are we blaming our problems on population? The only reason I can think of is to lift the blame from the wealthy nations, from ourselves. Treat people in the Third World like over-breeding cattle who can’t think for themselves. Force sterilisation on unwilling women. Breathe a sigh of guilty relief when a few of those cattle die from a natural disaster (that was most likely caused by global warming, a problem created by industrialised nations).
Stop playing the anti-PC game: You know, the one where you claim that anybody who suggests being humane and looking at facts is just being “politically correct.”
I’m glad some of you found solace in the fact that the OP feels the same way you do. Just know that that doesn’t make you any more of a moral person.
commentary
While I agree that over consumption is our primary problem, that doesn’t mean overpopulation isn’t a real thing. In 2050, 9 billion won’t be our peak it’s going to be where the ever-growing human race will reach unsustainable limits.
Huh? The UN estimated that population will PEAK at 9 billion. That means that it won’t increase past that point. We have gone past our sustainable limits already, and it has little to do with population. Take a look at the world, climate change, pollution, and environmental decimation. The first world has raped this planet dry.
I’m not saying that people in 3rd world countries need to stop making babies, I’m saying, we as a whole need to figure this shit out. Just like with all plants and animals, there needs to be something that controls our population. We have no natural predators left and our medicine is growing more and more advanced, so really there’s nothing killing us off quite like war and natural disasters.
Human beings are the only species capable of consciously controlling their own population. To suggest that early death and suffering are the only things that keep our population from growing is truly ignorant. Population is already DECREASING in the wealthier countries. You know, the ones where starvation, famine, and disease are LEAST common.
If our population isn’t checked, it won’t matter what kind of groovy sustainable eco growing system you come up with, man. There won’t be any room to plant because we’re all going to be living literally on top of one and other.
Absolute, utter bullshit. We can fit our entire current population into the state of Texas. Humans need little land per person for subsistence agriculture. Since we will peak at 9 billion, there will be plenty of room on the planet, just as there is now.
this shit bugs me out so much, shouldn’t we be living in space by 2050 or something? ….oh, wait. they cancelled the NASA space exploration program. guess we’re all fucked.
Yes, that’s the solution. Fuck up one planet through completely unsustainable behaviour and then move it to another. Or to outer space. Good thinking.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltxelnQb3f1r3u2ijo1_1280.jpg)
