Andreas Malm wrote an excellent book a few years ago entitled, How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight In a World on Fire. I recommend everyone read it. I won’t ruin his argument except to say that in his opinion, nonviolent pacifism in fighting the climate criminals is destined to fail and leads to fatalism within the movement.
Unfortunately, time is tuning out when wrestling with the ethical dilemmas of what has been forced upon us by the wealthiest among us.
Brian and Gary, I strongly agree with the points each of you make. The concept of violence (and "terrorism") is being defined for us. Defacing a Tesla is now "terrorism," and it was always going to come to this — property (theirs) is more precious than life (ours).
As to loving communities, of course. That's how our species got on for more than 90% of its history. It's what we do to survive. I'm glad the subject's brought up (thanks!) — it's what will happen anyway, but it needs to be said, especially now.
Yes, Thomas - and as to the definition of “eco terrorist” or simply “terrorist “ - Kim Stanley Robinson brings this theme out in “The Ministry For The Future” sci-fi/cli-fi novel.
“The Children of Kali” in that novel are a group based in the global
South who see the dominant industrial culture as the true eco-terrorists and terrorists. It is Modern Technological Civilization who hangs multiple Swords of Damacles over the heads of every living creature on planet earth and thinks nothing of it.
Who is terrified? Who is devouring the future?
These questions are rarely asked out loud in our civilization.
I appreciate Malm’s work and perspectives very much. I am intrigued by the words “nonviolent” and “pacifism” and “fatalism.”
I have also long been considering the simple reality that “we” humans do not have agency in any conventional use of the term related to ultimate outcomes for species survival.
Given that we are in a predicament, it makes sense to me that we create beloved community. More specifically - we need to enter into the beloved community that earth has always been inviting us to live in.
The climate perps are very real, and in so many ways prevent us from entering into beloved community. Living loving life does not imply being passive in relation to them. Indeed, it implies active resistance. (At least that’s how I see it.) But strategy
for creating sanctuary and resistance involve people who develop a sense of “we”.
I appreciate the essay on looking for climate perps. I want to reflect more on implications. So far, I focus on building local beloved community of folks who are fully aware of the tsunamis of change that will not likely be survived by many humans - violent or nonviolent.
This kind of work is slow and very personal. There are many changes happening as so many people are waking up.
Of course many people prefer to design their world views and actions around narratives that center their own conventional “personal peace and affluence.” It seems to me that this prevents many people from seeing our actual shared global predicament.
I am a mystic. I believe that there is no generativity in our dominant culture. If any future exists, it involves embracing our absolute vulnerability and moving into direct beloved community that recognizes we are one with the earth - not separate from earth.
Well, there is more: ecocide is a self-terminating way of being. The climate perps are heavily into ecocide. Most of us are deeply complicit, enclosed and controlled by ecocidal civilization. Things look pretty grim. My trust is rooted in our unity with the more-than-human communion of beings.
We are each here to love. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing else.
Sometimes love takes the form of clear truth-telling - which you have done here.
There are so many possible ways to take action. Not so much to save ourselves or our species, but rather to live in loving relationship for whatever time we have left.
Ultimate outcomes are not within our control. How we choose to live in loving ways - that is in our control….
Too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution, including GHGs and climate collapse. We are now 3,000 times more populous than were our migratory Hunter-Gatherer/pastoralist ancestors only a few thousand years ago. What could go wrong? Everything?
There's reason to think it's both population and consumption, i.e. with 8 billion humans you can't roll back atmospheric carbon only with consumption changes.
Andreas Malm wrote an excellent book a few years ago entitled, How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight In a World on Fire. I recommend everyone read it. I won’t ruin his argument except to say that in his opinion, nonviolent pacifism in fighting the climate criminals is destined to fail and leads to fatalism within the movement.
Unfortunately, time is tuning out when wrestling with the ethical dilemmas of what has been forced upon us by the wealthiest among us.
Brian and Gary, I strongly agree with the points each of you make. The concept of violence (and "terrorism") is being defined for us. Defacing a Tesla is now "terrorism," and it was always going to come to this — property (theirs) is more precious than life (ours).
As to loving communities, of course. That's how our species got on for more than 90% of its history. It's what we do to survive. I'm glad the subject's brought up (thanks!) — it's what will happen anyway, but it needs to be said, especially now.
Each of you is right in your way.
Yes, Thomas - and as to the definition of “eco terrorist” or simply “terrorist “ - Kim Stanley Robinson brings this theme out in “The Ministry For The Future” sci-fi/cli-fi novel.
“The Children of Kali” in that novel are a group based in the global
South who see the dominant industrial culture as the true eco-terrorists and terrorists. It is Modern Technological Civilization who hangs multiple Swords of Damacles over the heads of every living creature on planet earth and thinks nothing of it.
Who is terrified? Who is devouring the future?
These questions are rarely asked out loud in our civilization.
I appreciate Malm’s work and perspectives very much. I am intrigued by the words “nonviolent” and “pacifism” and “fatalism.”
I have also long been considering the simple reality that “we” humans do not have agency in any conventional use of the term related to ultimate outcomes for species survival.
Given that we are in a predicament, it makes sense to me that we create beloved community. More specifically - we need to enter into the beloved community that earth has always been inviting us to live in.
The climate perps are very real, and in so many ways prevent us from entering into beloved community. Living loving life does not imply being passive in relation to them. Indeed, it implies active resistance. (At least that’s how I see it.) But strategy
for creating sanctuary and resistance involve people who develop a sense of “we”.
I appreciate the essay on looking for climate perps. I want to reflect more on implications. So far, I focus on building local beloved community of folks who are fully aware of the tsunamis of change that will not likely be survived by many humans - violent or nonviolent.
This kind of work is slow and very personal. There are many changes happening as so many people are waking up.
Of course many people prefer to design their world views and actions around narratives that center their own conventional “personal peace and affluence.” It seems to me that this prevents many people from seeing our actual shared global predicament.
I am a mystic. I believe that there is no generativity in our dominant culture. If any future exists, it involves embracing our absolute vulnerability and moving into direct beloved community that recognizes we are one with the earth - not separate from earth.
Well, there is more: ecocide is a self-terminating way of being. The climate perps are heavily into ecocide. Most of us are deeply complicit, enclosed and controlled by ecocidal civilization. Things look pretty grim. My trust is rooted in our unity with the more-than-human communion of beings.
Mystical, but not at all passive….
You summed this up very well. Thank you!
We are each here to love. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing else.
Sometimes love takes the form of clear truth-telling - which you have done here.
There are so many possible ways to take action. Not so much to save ourselves or our species, but rather to live in loving relationship for whatever time we have left.
Ultimate outcomes are not within our control. How we choose to live in loving ways - that is in our control….
Thanks, Gary!
Thomas
Too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution, including GHGs and climate collapse. We are now 3,000 times more populous than were our migratory Hunter-Gatherer/pastoralist ancestors only a few thousand years ago. What could go wrong? Everything?
The whole point of the posting is to show it is NOT "too many humans" that is the problem.
There's reason to think it's both population and consumption, i.e. with 8 billion humans you can't roll back atmospheric carbon only with consumption changes.
https://blackthorn.substack.com/p/population-vs-consumption-its-not-either-or-and-for-both-less-is-more