literally nobody thought that was the case. this is just holier-than-thou fartsmellery.
I do agree that this is very rare take from climate activists. Those folks usually know their shit and are pretty radical.
However, this line of reasoning is definitely a thing among laypersons. It has historical precedent that has its roots in Malthusian population theory.
are you sure about that? the “oh, humans are so evil, we’re destroying our planet! i wish all humans were dead” sentiment is extremely common
yeah that’s called ecofascism. it’s about as well thought through an ideology as anarchocapitalism.
i mean, it has its roots in how we discuss climate change. we call it “human-made”, so yes, people will jump to “humanity is to blame for climate change”. it’s a very logical leap, and not entirely wrong, even if it doesn’t tell the whole story (which part of humanity is responsible?)
i feel like that part comes naturally. it’s pretty easy to go from “i’m trying to help” to “no matter how much i help i can’t make a difference because the system makes it useless” to “who designed the system?”
Yes, but much more commom
Unfortunately the misanthropic sentiment is the foundation for a whole plethora of ecofascist tendencies, both intentionally and unintentionally so, that are shockingly common.
Did someone fucking print this tweet out and then scan it?
“How do I install this tweet!?” - some grandma still using AOL dialup
Right!? Why is it slightly askew?
It was so good that I faxed it to myself at work.
I love when people reinvent ethnic essentialism. Every single culture that had the means and the opportunity to rape the land for profit has done it. The ones that didn’t simply couldn’t.
South American natives fight mining companies, but if they had the right to exploit the land themselves, do you think they would be any different from the North American natives who found oil on their lands and are happily fracking for it?
I agree, we gotta address the root of the problem: Extractivism, colonialism and infinite growth economies are just human by-products.
edit: I’m not gonna engage in talks about unicorns and rainbows, but I guess most of you must find Bakunin pretty misanthropic too because of his views on vesting men with power… just reflect about the quote, is the problem just power, or is men having power? OP’s saints lack the power to rape the land, if you want to mention the goodness in humanity, show the societies that collectively rejected convenience at the cost of environmental destruction when they had the choice… all around the world, every group in power did the same thing when they had the opportunity, the saints that didn’t conveniently lacked the power to do it anyway.
Every single culture that had the means and the opportunity to rape the land for profit has done it. The ones that didn’t simply couldn’t.
This is wildly inaccurate and borderline racist. Your culture revolving around resource extraction doesn’t mean everyone’s does, and it doesn’t mean that’s a cope they have because they’re too stupid to figure out how to do it.
As a single example, the Menominee developed commercial forestry practices in the 19th century that allowed them to perpetually harvest from a sustainable old growth forest instead of clear cutting everything. After decades of battling the US government over control of their forest, today it still stands. Anyone who thinks that they’re incapable of renting and operating a chainsaw and cutting everything down is just a racist. They don’t do it not because they can’t, they don’t do it because they don’t want to.
This story isn’t unique, indigenous groups all over the world do what they can through legal systems and direct action to protect the environment. This isn’t to say every indigenous person is morally pure or has these politics, it’s just that if you deny it’s a trend that exists you’re closing your eyes to reality.
Can’t build anarchy on misanthropy.
Every single culture that had the means and the opportunity to rape the land for profit has done it. The ones that didn’t simply couldn’t.
How did you come to this conclusion? From my perspective there is no way to demonstrate a culture had the means to exploit the land for profit unless they did it. I’d be interested in knowing if I missed something.
Possible counterpoints would be the existence of sustainable foraging practices and taboos around greed, or practices like potlatch. These exist in various forms around the world today.
Ethnicity is a tricky concept to apply here but I think you are getting at the concept of idealizing “primitive” cultures. I don’t think that’s what was going on in the OP. I think they are saying humanity has a choice, the choice that is being made is to allow these behaviors to continue.
How did you come to this conclusion?
Fash podcasts.
this ain’t it, fam
Someone desperately needs to read Graeber and abandon this misanthropic mentality.
It’s not ethnic essentialism to acknowledge that there are cultures that long knew of the dangers of exploiting the land too much and put more emphasis on sustainability in their usage of the land. Extractivism, colonialism and infinite growth are parts of our culture and culture can change as a result of conscious decisions. Indigenous cultures can be part of the motivation to do so at all and be inspiration for where to go instead.
i dunno, the indus valley civilization did minimal ecological damage compared to all the other civilizations
This enemy classification includes the settler/colonialist workers in the Amazon who are working as the frontier of capital accumulation.
I thought Amazon workers for a bit and was thoroughly confused
Its easy to criticize, but when you ask for a solution, they’ve got nothing. Literally zero.
Except for a large scale die off of humanity.
something something, the planet can only support 1 billion
As if 80% population loss is somehow a solution
Uh… who’s “they?” Because I’ve seen plenty of people propose solutions (usually some combination of renewable energy and environmental protection at the national level).
Well akshually, the rising standard and of living in the developing world in general and sub-Saharan Africa in particular means that kids in Africa are contributing to climate change. Now when you ask why kids in Africa can’t fuel their improving standards of living with solar panels instead you’re going to end up at these things, but still.
Identify the real enemy.
… does not identify the real enemy.
Don’t confuse can’t with don’t. People are people.
Not all humans! >:(
hehe just like the “not all men”
The “not all men” trope is intended to highlight the unhelpful complicity of that response in the context of patriarchy. It’s not meant to imply the inverse, lest you’ve been walking around supposing that all men are patriarchs. Or similarly, that no cop has ever met their birth father.
Do you think that authoritarianism’s hand in ecological destruction means that as humans it is imperative of all of us to overthrow authoritarianism, or do you think it means that all humans are bad and must perish?
The idea of infinite progression.
