Note: I wrote this a while back. For a while, I was quite impressed with some of Jensen’s rhetoric — and in terms of education, I still apply some of his ideas, though in what I think is a more rigorous and sensible form. But on his endless vilification of “civilization” and “the culture,” I have lost my patience. To take the man seriously is to see the holes in his arguments. He’s no more a hypocrite than most of us — but he is more self-righteous in his hypocrisy.
My disenchantment with Derrick Jensen is now utterly complete. I googled his name and one of the first links was to a post where, back in 2004, Dirty Greek posted an interview Derrick Jensen from the Ecologist (March 2004). It was supposed to be a simply Q&A with five best book recommendations by Jensen, an author himself. The answers he gave are revealing.
Question one: Which book first made you realise that something was wrong (with the planet/political system/economic system, etc)?
My answer: It wasn’t a book. It was the destruction of place after place that I loved. And it was the complete insanity of a culture where so many people work at jobs they hate: What does it mean when the vast majority of people spend the vast majority of their waking hours doing things they’d rather not do? The culture itself convinced me something was wrong, by being so extraordinarily destructive, of human happiness, and far more importantly, the world itself.
That said, Neil Evernden’s The Natural Alien was the first book I read that let me know I was not insane: that the culture is insane. It was the first book I read that did not take the dominant culture’s utilitarian worldview as a given.
Uh huh. The culture is insane. Which culture, Derrick? Every culture has exploited the earth, at some point, and learned to live with the results. Yes, this is not cool. No, we are not the first and only.
Yes, I agree that it sucks that people have to do stuff they don’t like to do, or want to do, all day long. However, not all of us are bestselling authors who can charge $100/hour for webcam chats, or $60 a year for a subscription to our works in progress, or $18 for a t-shirt with a quote from our books. And no, I’m not saying he’s getting rich off his books and T-shirts and webcam-speaking gigs. I’m saying that most people don’t have many options. You want to wipe out evironmental trashing? Wipe out poverty first, and you’ll have masses both free and able to join the bigger fight.
Question two: Which one book would you give to every politician?
Answer: One that explodes.
Before you freak out, let’s change the question and see what you think: Which one book would you give to Hitler, Goering, Himmler, and Goebbels?
Let’s ask this another way: Would a book have changed Hitler? I don’t think so. Unless it exploded.
And before you freak out at the comparison of modern politicians to Hitler and his gang, try to look at it from the perspective of wild salmon, grizzly bears, bluefin tuna, or any of the (fiscally) poor or indigenous human beings. Those in power now are more destructive than anyone has ever been. And they are for the most part psychologically unreachable. And if someone does reach some politician, that politician will no longer be in power.
I recently shared a stage with Ward Chuchill. He said the primary difference between the U.S. and the Nazis is that the U.S. didn’t lose.
I responded with one word: “Yet.”
Because that’s the primary difference.
Except that this kind of talk is what drives the people in the middle over to the right. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Jensen’s passionate roleplaying as an extremist surely does sell books, but it does not help spread his message. The extremism rocks the converted, turns them into passionate consumers of his writing, but it does nothing to change the culture. That’s the secret paradox of the role Jensen plays — most people will never, ever trust him or someone like him.
But the converted, they’re going to be great consumers.
He’s right, most books won’t change the politicians — but not because they’re like Hitler. Most books — maybe no books — will change politicians because politicians are humans, and books will never change most human beings.
Jensen’s books don’t change people either, not beyond the small niche of people who are looking to be changed and seek out books like his. And his lack of faith, while it is surprisingly realistic, doesn’t line up with the little niche of book-publishing, public speaking, and so on that he’s created for himself.
Question three: What book would you give to every CEO?
Answer: See above.
Exploding books. So there’s a real consistency here. And a real, palpable hopelessness.
Question four: What book would you give to every child?
Answer: I wouldn’t give them a book.
Oh, wow! I expected another exploding book! Maybe Jensen doesn’t hate humanity… or, no, wait, a more sensible explanation is that advocating violent death for children will put his consumer base off, and he cannot afford to do so.
Of course, if he had his way, most of those children would die. After all, he’s the guy who advocates the termination of civilization. He seriously wants to get rid of it, or says he does. Only someone who lives in America — hell, in California — could miss the larger implications of such a desire.
If you do away with civilization, and thereby do away with all the technologies that facilitate modern agriculture and aquaculture and the infrastructure that moves things like food and clothing and fuel around, how will people eat? How will they stay warm in winter? It’s one thing for Derrick to do okay out, Thoreau-like, in the woods in a cabin for a while, as he describes in A Language Older Than Words. It’s quite another for everyone in the world to suddenly have to do so. The termination of civilization as we know it would result in a massive die-out of humanity, because of the simple fact that we’re dependent on our technologies to support the population we’re at right now.
All those dams Jensen hates so much — that he keeps advocating blowing up — are there to provide the electricity so you can read his webpage, and cook your food. They’re there to keep water in reserve so you have something to drink or wash your body and clothing in next week.
Are they perfect? Are they optimal? No, of course not. They can be massively improved. But should we just trash technology and civilization? Jensen that’s the message I take from Jensen’s writing: yes, we should. Perhaps he should get on a plane (or a boat, or a hot-air-balloon) and go visit someplace like Liberia, or Somalia. Places where the civilization he hates so much has already broken apart. Because what you get when you get rid of civilization is not some mythic, Rousseauian return to nature. What you get is roving bands of youths with guns, raping and killing and eating whatever they find, including some of those they rape and kill. What you get when civilization falls apart is chaos. Mass starvation. And an even more desperate, rapacious attitude toward nature.
Wouldn’t it be more merciful to give those kids exploding books than to advocate abandoning them to that hellscape?
Books are part of the problem: this strange belief that a tree has nothing to say until it is murdered, its flesh pulped, and then (human) people stain this flesh with words.
Says the bestselling author, I wish to note. I am glad I didn’t pay much for my used copies of those samples of his work that I own — with the exception of one book — because, hey, I was saving trees. Glad to have spared you the sin of making money off something you fundamentally oppose, Mr. Jensen.
I would take children outside, and put them face to face with chipmunks, dragonflies, tadpoles, hummingbirds, stones, rivers, trees, crawdads.
How very California. What about if you’re in the desert? Nature for Jensen is California forests, or maybe the West Coast. Someone like him would not last 3 days on the outback without a guide. Why? Oh, yes — ecocide. All those dangerous, poisonous critters — all the dangerous, stomping megafauna? The evil, terrible humans used their civilization — er, wait, they were peace-loving, egalitarian naturalist Indians, right? They can’t have had a civilization, since, in Jensenist thought, civilization is based on violence. So why is there evidence that they caused the biggest of megafauna to go extinct in the Americas, just like humans seem to have done everywhere they’ve gone? Hey, maybe they were tainted by civilization after all.
My goodness. Maybe ecocide is bigger than we thought, Derrick. Maybe we have to abolish not just civilization, but humanity in general!
The scary thing is that in his radical-chic mode, I am not sure he wouldn’t agree with the abolition of humanity. Hell, he may have written of it somewhere already!
That said, if you’re going to force me to give them a book, it would be The Wind in the Willows, which would I hope remind them to go outside.
Oh, wow, another surprise. I would have thought he’d have produced a series of children’s books by now. Well, he must not have, because if he had, rest assured, he’d be flogging it here.
Question five: It’s 2050. The ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising. You’re only allowed one book on the Ark. What is it?
Answer: I wouldn’t take a book, and I wouldn’t get on the ark. I would kill myself (and take a dam out with me).
Quick Question #1: Does it seem apparent that blowing up a dam would achieve a bloody thing when the world is being flooded by endless rains?
(Yeah, I didn’t think so. Oh, right, it’s a masturbatory fantasy. It also shows Jensen’s lack of imagination. That dams will be a major problem in 2050 assumes we won’t have made strides in any number of technologies. Jensen’s assumption is right out of Orwell: the current status quo will perpetuate itself exactly, forever — a boot stamping on a human face, yadda yadda yadda.)
Quick Question #2: Okay, then I’ll save your spot on the ark for my girlfriend, alright? Thanks Derrick.
I do not want to live without a living landbase. Without a living landbase I would already be dead.
Yet, paradoxically, you wouldn’t be, because dead men cannot kill themselves. So you’d miss the chance to tell your children how the world used to be. You’d miss the chance to seal up old issues of Nature in an airtight container for generations to come. (Which puts me in mind of Bruce Sterling’s short-short “Message Found in a Bottle” — in Visionary in Residence — a story that seemed bleak when I first read it. Wow, Derrick Jensen has succeeded in making it positively optimistic!) You’d miss out on seeing if maybe the waters subsided a decade later. You also missed how unscientific that question was: there would be a landbase, it’d just be smaller. There isn’t enough water on earth to submerge everything, after all.
No book would even remotely compensate. Not a million books. Not a million computers. Not a million people would compensate.
Not even six billion, or eight billion. Freedom, no matter what the cost. Gotcha, Derrick.
As for me, I’m on the side of life. I agree, we’re idiots when it comes to nature. We’re assholes.
But unlike Jensen, I haven’t given up on us. I have the guts to admit that while I love the natural world, we are part of that natural world, and, yes, humanity is the part I’m most concerned about keeping alive.
I also have the guts to trust in science and technology, and not just in the newagey ramblings and subjective impressions of a bestselling nature author, ramblings the logic behind which is so shaky that I only pray Jensen himself doesn’t take them anywhere near as seriously as he appears to do. But, of course he doesn’t. If he did, he’d be advocating we all trashed our computers, and he wouldnt’t have a web page, right? I mean, the amount of energy the Internet uses, alone, should be enough for him to be calling on idiots worldwide to crash the net.
Yes, I daresay he’s not quite as science-savvy as he makes himself out to be. In A Language Older Than Words, he explained that he’d trained as a scientist (a B.S. in Mineral Engineering Physics from the Colorado School of Mines, says Wikipedia) and left the field in disgust. Yeah, well, I don’t know whether a BA in something counts that much for cred anymore: I graduated with a BA in Music and English Lit and when I arrived at grad school to study lit more, I was completely out to sea. I pulled myself to the banks, surely, but it was not because I had a BA in anything. Jensen’s cred as a scientist, it means very little, I think, in the big picture.
Still, who can blame him? The evironmentalist-extremist author niche was wide open, and everyone’s gotta make a living. He’s probably having fun. He might even have convinced himself to believe some of the silliness he spouts, in which case, there’s the effervescent endorphin high of self-righteous rage. But as for me, I will trust to other, more measured, and perhaps more mature, and definitely more hopeful minds to keep our world going.
Thank you Neil, even though I got a little spooked, I think this is a perfect example of The DJ forum coming in and making a little show here. I mean this is exactly what you deal with. I would never want anyone murdered. I DO NOT HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE DERRICK JENSEN IS A FEDERAL AGENT. I mentioned the possibility of the possibility in a paragraph, in context it was to make a point. I think you and GORD have remarked very well here too and so, I think the comments should stay, as a case and point right here, especially with DJ Forum Member’s last comment which makes no sense to me.
Moving on, I am reading Wendy’s Blog and I am very sorry she was kicked off for being rude, when she brings up great points, and points I would think they would find very useful to answer.
You are spot on about that community being a toxic mimic of a community. They are alienating a lot of very good people.
Thanks Gord and Neil for speaking up again. I was really hurt by what happened, but there are sane people in the world and it is nice to be reminded of it.
Nina, I replied partly in order to try to give you some support, as it seems that you are being targeted by these cowards (who don’t even have the guts to put their real names to their words). Please don’t feel alone, and don’t feel afraid of these assholes. They may try to intimidate you, but they are basically cowards, and (when they think they can get away with it) evidently bullies too. I think it’s important to stand up to these people, if only by shedding light on their behavior. They would much rather stay in the shadows, and Jensen obviously wants to control his little world completely (as evidenced by uncerimoniously throwing out of his forums anyone who disagrees with him). So the more light we can throw on all this, the better for everybody to see what they are all about. Any reasonable person observing all this can really only come to one conclusion.
I am frankly offended that I was taken in by Jensen’s book – even for the short time it took me before I realized that he is in fact mentally ill. I resent the fact that he takes advantage of people’s legitimate concerns about the direction our world is headed, and perverts them with a twisted worldview of perpetual abuse, hate and hopelessness. His cowardice (by never actually taking the direct action that he frequently talks about wanting to do, e.g. blowing up dams), his single-track, one-dimensional worldview and his draconian control-freak handling of his “community forums” just need to be pointed up and talked about openly. That’s why I think this discussion is so important – it may be just words, but so are Jensen’s books. Fight fire with fire.
Neil
p.s. If you do in fact ever feel actually physically threatened, then please don’t hesitate to go to the police and tell them what’s going on. I think it’s unlikely that any of Jensen’s crackpot followers would consider you a threat enough to actually go after you in real life. I run a fairly popular community website of my own, and I’ve had to throw people off in the past, and I’ve been threatened, but 99.999% of the time, internet hot air is just that.
Nina,
I am glad you have retracted your baseless and evidence-less accusation of Derrick being a fed.
~
Gord,
a more clear version of the above:
Snitch jacketting definition: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Snitch%20jacket&defid=4272004
Snitchjacketting is where person A accuses person B of being a snitch, working for the feds, or an undercover agent of some description. Person B’s life is then at risk from others within criminal/underground subcultures who would rather see person B dead than to be snitched on. The term ‘snitchjacket’ came from the folder-jackets used on the paper records police used to keep. Snitches would have specific jackets on their files.
Person A in this example is Nina. Person B would be Derrick.
I was saying that Nina’s accusations could result in Derrick and his family being killed by those people Derrick used to mix with in the prison, or greenscare victims, or whomever is working in criminal subcultures, or whomever is derranged enough to believe Nina’s or others’ ramblings on here.
However, given that you do not like murder to be promoted on your site, I suggest you remove/edit Nina’s post and all others where Derrick is accused of being a fed or a snitch. Unless, in fact, you wish to promote Derrick and his family being murdered. In which case, let those comments stay.
I hope this makes things more clear.
a DJ forum member.
DJ Forum Member,
You didn’t answer my question. I didn’t think you could. I was right.
I did not accuse Derrick Jensen of being a fed. In context, it was used to make a point because it is obvious he isn’t a fed. No one accused Derrick of being a fed. I am surprised this went over Derrick’s head, but not yours. You obviously didn’t read my post.
I wrote that I was tired the night I posted, I should have said “unless he is a fed, at least it would explain why… ” the book that changed my life turned into a cult of hopelessness. I was asking why does he write books if he is so pessimistic about people. It was almost a joke. I’ve heard Derrick write about the written word changing the nature of talking, you are charged to what you say much more than in a regular conversation but this is what has happened. It was something fleeting I set up in a paragraph to make a point that he does not think things are hopeless, he believes he can influence people.
You are just a silly, troublemaker. You won’t answer my question because that is not why you sent him my post. You could have just made your point that it could lead to dangerous circumstances. That is the only reason I made it clear that I don’t think he is a fed. Believe it or not, some people who have left his forum, and have spent much more time on it than you, trust me, actually care about his obviously not so well-being. You just wanted to get attention. That is what people do, and he probably likes it.
I did nothing wrong. I am allowed to speak out about my experiences and now I will do so even more thoroughly.
Derrick is actually a very nice person, who I felt had the potential to be a very good leader. I saw people drawn to environmentalism who had never been before, by reading A Language Older than Words because it gave hope. It gave honest hope and made people feel strong. He never wrote about how and why he began to preach hopelessness but I know without a shadow of a doubt it is so counteractive and that is very, very sad. You forum members aren’t the only ones who care about this world, who love it. Though it appears you all think that way. The more Derrick Jensen criticism there is, the better because his doom vision is like a self fulfilling prophecy.
I have had so many private messages from people on that forum, when I was a part of it, from other members worrying about the way Derrick would react to criticism but to afraid to say anything.
In his last note to me Derrick wrote, “you never learned no means no.” Because I wrote him back after he wrote me when he told me not to, as if he gets to talk and no one else can respond. SO what am I raping him now? Doesn’t he realize what that sounds like coming from him?
Pathetic. I can’t wait until that group falls apart.
“Unless, in fact, you wish to promote Derrick and his family being murdered. In which case, let those comments stay.”
Are you talking about the rumor I read somewhere that Derrick Jensen is a snitch for the feds? Wow, that sounds so wrong, maybe I should go onto some other internet message boards and start asking around about this scurrilous rumor, because it would certainly not be a good thing if Google started to associate the words “Derrick Jensen” and “fed” (and maybe even “snitch”). After all, I wouldn’t want Derrick Jensen to experience any of this “direct action” that he apparently wants the rest of the world to experience as it falls into ruin, would I?
So, in all seriousness, I’m curious – how do you people feel about free speech? In other words, in your opinion, should we be able to talk about stuff like this openly? Note that I’m not actually accusing Derrick Jensen of anything – being a snitch for the feds, whatever – but I am talking about it, and eventually Google would start to pick up on the word associations. At what point do you start to get antsy about that? Do you seriously think Jensen could get killed over an internet rumor? Do you seriously believe that people who would do such a thing wouldn’t check into it first to see if there’s anything of substance there? Do you seriously believe that anonymous posts on internet message boards have that kind of power? If that was the case, then it would be insanely easy to off just about anyone. People would be getting popped left, right and center, it would be a daily occurrence. I don’t like the way my neighbor mows his lawn? Post something about him that makes it sound like he’s a snitch on the local bad boy. BAM, he’s gone, problem solved! Wow, how easy.
The reason I’m harping on this is that you seem pretty intent on getting Nina’s posts deleted, even after she has effectively made clear that she’s not making any concrete accusation about Jensen being a snitch or a fed. So there must be something else going on here, and the only thing I can think of is that you just can’t stand not being in control of the discussion. This fits in with Jensen’s control-freak attitude toward his own forums.
Extremism breeds responses, you can’t behave in the way Jensen and his followers do and not expect people to respond in kind. Deal with it.
Neil Gunton
Actually, the more I think about it, the more sense it seems to make that Jensen could be a fed. I mean, it’s definitely been a tactic in the past for the government agencies to “plant” people in radical movements so that they can keep track of the crazies from the inside. Who better to do this than an author, who publishes incendiary books that act like lightning rods, attracting just the sort of people who would like to bring down civilization? It’s like the honey pot strategy in computer science – set up a server with enticingly open ports, and see who comes knocking. A giant sting operation, in effect. I dunno, I have absolutely no evidence one way or the other, but the idea that someone like Jensen could be a fed doesn’t actually seem outside the realms of possibility. Of course you could say that about anyone, but there’s the interesting fact that he never actually DOES anything, but rather just talks about stuff… letting other people do the dirty work, and maybe letting his friends back at fed base know when Tom, Dick or Harry are getting just a little bit too serious. Who better to keep tabs on the crazies than the guru himself? It would be, frankly, a brilliant strategy. Which would also explain why he is so closed about participation in his forums and community – he wouldn’t want any common sense or dissenting opinions to get in the way or muddy the waters. Maybe that would explain why he was so vitriolic in pushing me away when I tried to engage him – he could sense that I wasn’t a cult candidate, I asked too many questions, so tell me to fuck off in no uncertain terms. It could totally make sense.
Of course, I could just be blowing smoke, but the thought experiment does hold up when you just think about it a bit. Interesting stuff!
Neil
Neil,
I said for the posts to be deleted or edited. In other words for those sections to be edited out. The posts can stay, it’s up to Gord what he wants to do and what he wants to promote on this site.
“So, in all seriousness, I’m curious – how do you people feel about free speech?”
If you think speech in the USA is free, then you are sadly deluded – take a look at the numerous laws passed since your constitution was written to see how the concept of ‘free speech’ has been eroded.
DJ forum member.
Neil,
“Maybe that would explain why he was so vitriolic in pushing me away when I tried to engage him – he could sense that I wasn’t a cult candidate, I asked too many questions, so tell me to fuck off in no uncertain terms. It could totally make sense.”
Actually, having read your post above on what you said to him – you were downright rude. How would you like it if I randomly emailed you – a complete stranger – to talk about, as a for instance, your sex life? Don’t you think I would be crossing the boundaries into what was unacceptible to say to a complete stranger?
Seeing as you wish to talk about the most personal and intimate abuse someone can go through, why don’t we talk publicly about your sex life right now? hmn?
What’s that? too personal? too embarrased?
point made?
“If you think speech in the USA is free, then you are sadly deluded”
Wow, way to completely ignore the entire substance of my post. Congratulations, you must have a doctorate in Internet Debate.
My point wasn’t about our freedoms (or lack thereof) here in the USA, but rather YOUR apparent continued desire for Nina’s words to be censored, even after she has clarified her meaning in no uncertain terms. So even though nobody who was reading this could possibly construe that she is accusing Jensen of being a fed, especially not to the point of having him murdered… even so, you STILL want her words to be censored. THAT is what I’m talking about.
“it’s up to Gord what he wants to do and what he wants to promote on this site.”
Your insistence in portraying Nina’s contribution to this thread as somehow promoting murder is so over-the-top and absurd that it barely warrants a response, so I’ll just leave it there.
Neil
“How would you like it if I randomly emailed you – a complete stranger – to talk about, as a for instance, your sex life? Don’t you think I would be crossing the boundaries into what was unacceptible to say to a complete stranger?”
This is a red herring. If I wrote entire books about my sex life, then Yes, of course I would expect people to comment on it, and even write to me with their own takes on what I wrote. Derrick Jensen has written entire books that talk very publicly about his abuse. It is not a private matter any more, is it. My sex life is private, because I don’t go around writing books about it. Nor do I use my sex life as a platform for promoting the end of civilization through violent means.
When I start discussing my sex life in public, then by all means have at it, with my blessings.
Neil
Neil,
The point still stands, you were downright rude. I was cringing as I read what you wrote to him. It doesn’t matter if he has written about the abuse he went through in his books, the fact remains what you said was downright rude and *uninvited*.
Would you write to someone like Jeanette Winterson and ask her the details of her sex life with her girlfriend? But she uses her partner’s likeness in all her books where she details lesbian sex. You know, she even wrote a text about bringing down civilisation whilst including a description of lesbian sex with her partner.
No, you wouldn’t do that because that would be rude. Plain rude. And entitled to think you had any right to do so.
Just because someone comes out and shows how the process of abuse mirrors processes found in wider society does not give you the right/entitlement to email them with whatever you wish. You don’t even have the *right* to email Jensen, let alone have the right to talk about this.
Do you really believe yourself to be that entitled?
DJ Forum Member,
Speculating whether someone is who he or she claims to be is not the same as accusing them of such a thing. You really need to work on your basic logic and critical thinking.
You’re avoiding the question; I cannot help but wonder whether it’s a trick you picked up from Jensen himself, as he is a big fan of that particular move.
As for me, I definitely believe in free speech, up to but not including incitations to murder. Nina very clearly was speculating, and while I suspect (from my own, very brief encounter with Jensen online) that it’s probably not the case–that he really is just a fanatic who has made up his mind and is projecting his own mental health problems into “civilization”–I have no problem with the idle speculation.
Indeed, I can go so far as to say I’ve considered writing a “Phildickian” SF novel (ie. a science fiction novel vaguely in the style of Philip K. Dick) in which a radical (read nutball, Jensen-like) environmentalist ends up actually being an employee of the federal government (underwritten by major corporations since the federal budget ran out) to turn the green movement into an utterly ineffectual, psychodrama-indulgent quagmire. The sad thing is, I think (as someone who is generally considered a leftist) that it’s really just the over-accommodating, new-agey political aesthetic of the modern left that is at work which preventing large numbers of people from just saying aloud, “This guy’s a loon, here’s how it’s obvious.”
In any case, I’m going to leave the posts as they are for several reasons: because I
(a) have absolutely no objection to Nina’s and Neil’s speculation,
(b) think the accusation that she is inciting murder is laughable (and have no idea who would be reading this blog and deducing that except a Jensen fan eager to engage in a little victimological drama (is the environmentalist mafia really as prevalent and active as you seem to want to suggest, DJ forum member? No, I didn’t think so…), and
(c) because I think it’s a great example of the dunderheaded silliness of those who seek to defend Jensen’s honor, and insist on remaining under his spell.
I think the refrain for people who are on the same page as me is pretty clear so far: there are obvious problems in the world, Jensen seems to be vaguely aware of them, but nearly everything he has to say about those problems is at the very least far more problematic than the problems themselves, at at worst represent moral idiocy, psychiatric distress, poor argumentation and support for arguments, and a distressingly authoritarian attitude towards discussions.
The response I see from those who want to support Jensen seem to hinge on their willingness to support him, and rarely if ever are made up of rebuttals to these criticisms.
Some people are neither Jensen fans, not Jensen opponents, and seem to want to critique civilization, while not necessarily endorsing Jensen’s take on the problem or potential “solutions.”
Is that a fair summary of the range of consensus here?m Because, frankly, if that’s the case, I think those who support Jensen ought to step up and respond to the specific criticisms above. That would constitute participating in the discussion, while issuing homemade takedown orders and waxing lyrical about the erosion of free speech in America (a foreign country for you, DJ forum member, judging by your IP).
While I understand in principle with Nina’s cursing out DJ forum member, so much so in fact that I considered reiterating it–I think it’s more constructive to simply point out that DJ forum member is behaving like a lunatic drama queen in that accusation.
I learned the hard way to ban lunatic drama queens are the first warning. So DJ Forum member, consider yourself warned.
DJ forum member, since you posted that last glob of drivel before my response went up, I’m considering this a reiteration of the warning. Things to consider:
Winterson, unlike Jensen, is writing fiction, not advocating the end of civilization through violent means.
Jensen’s claim that his familial abuse is a mirror of the abusiveness of “civilization” is a claim, not a fact. The fact he uses it to support his arguments DOES constitute an open invitation to discuss the subject, to question his use of it, and so on. He may be possessed of special privileges in your mind, but nobody is obligated to feel that way, least of all his critics. He MADE his abuse part of the discussion. There may be room for discussions of tact, but as many have noted, Jensen isn’t perfect either.
As for telling people whether they have the right to email someone, do you realize how silly you sound? How utterly ridiculous you sound?
Once again, I remind you: this is a warning. Yes, I can (and will) ban you if you refuse to engage with the arguments, and just bait people troll-style.
Yes, in exactly the same sense that Jensen is entitled to post his opinion that civilization has to come tumbling down, by violent means if necessary, implicitly killing numerous people in the process. How entitled is that? Incidentally, who exactly decides how these entitlements are handed out? Is there a form I have to fill out?
Your reduction of everything to a question of who’s “entitled”, and who has the “right” to email anybody else, smacks of precisely the same absolutist (and extremely self-centered) rhetoric that Jensen peddles in his books. Everything is about victims being abused, and if anybody dares question his worldview, then they are slapped down with rebukes about how they don’t have the right to criticise Jensen. Sorry, but Yes, I *do* absolutely have the right to email the guy, he wrote a book which makes it abundantly clear that his entire worldview springs from the abuse that he suffered in early life. I don’t see how it’s so incredibly rude to ask the simple question (and this is all I did) that maybe his coloring of everything in terms of victims and abuse, oh, I dunno, maybe has something to do with his own childhood abuse? It’s kind of a simple A -> B connect the dots kind of deal here, really not that complicated. In fact, remember when I wrote to Jensen originally, I was actually trying to be friendly, and was expecting a literary response where he would explain how and why this wasn’t the case. And, in fact, Jensen completely ignored the bulk of the rest of my email, which was generally extremely complimentary toward his book – he chose to just focus on that one single paragraph. As I quickly learned, he’s not actually interested in real debate at all, which raises a huge red flag for anybody with a modicum of intellect.
Yes, I absolutely have the right to question the motivation and drive behind a man who is advocating the violent downfall of civilization, because I am a part of that civilization. What he is advocating will have a direct impact on my life. If he has the “right” to talk about this stuff, then so do I. No doubt that makes me a “garden variety abuser” that Jensen called me in one of his emails, but since I don’t buy into his wonky, surreal, upside-down worldview, that characterization just makes me laugh.
Neil
DJ Forum Member,
Concerning, Neil’s exchange with Derrick, you are forgetting some important factors.
Derrick Jensen has made his abuse story public and he is the spokesperson/leader of a “movement” that, if acted upon, has deep ramifications for everyone, including Neil. Asking a man who is to any degree an influential person an writer if his abuse might be responsible for his world view is not rude, it is completely appropriate and even morally necessary.
You people don’t put the pieces together and that is really scary. If Derrick were to have his way, Neil and his family could be murdered, but it is somehow in appropriate for someone to suggest that his horrible history of abuse may be influencing his world view. I have never heard him explain why and how he knows it isn’t.
I was abused as a child also, and I am very unhappy that my friends didn’t ask me if that pain was influencing some of my bad decisions. He was not rude. This man says he is ok with a mass die off of people, he writes books on how to dismantle civilization. He needs to be questioned plenty.
You are still suggesting that my initial comment had any danger to it after I have explained. You are rude. You are very rude.
Please make a list of “criticisms” you believe Jensen’s work to have. And I’m talking about valid, coherent arguments; not personal vitriol from people who were denied access to Jensen’s forum last week.
Incidentally, I was anti-civ for three years before I even knew Jensen existed.
Now I am pretty sure you are just a troll. You are ignoring the arguments people are making directly here in this thread, and instead just trying to take us off on other tangents. We are trying to engage you, but you just keep changing the subject. You say A, I say A is wrong because B, then you say (new tangent) C. Just FYI, that makes for an extremely unsatisfying debate. So now you want us to go do a lot of work just to satisfy you? There have been plenty of arguments presented here as to why Jensen is wrong headed, why don’t you address some of those instead of ignoring them?
p.s. It’s really late here now, I’m off to bed.
I’m sorry, by the way. I would really appreciate it if you could justify your first statement you ever made here and tell me of a case scenario, even close to someone making a comment on a blog forum questioning if someone is a fed resulting in the murder of the person and their family, just the person, or even the threat of murder.
You also never responded to Gords comment which is pretty rude since this is his blog. He was very apt in explaining how what you are saying could actually put me in danger, but that doesn’t matter to you does it? I have criticized your leader? This is the third time I will ask, if you can’t answer then I think it is pretty clear it was a over-the-top and ridiculous excuse to justify your tattle telling and brown-nosing which I have seen so many times during my years on the Derrick Jensen forum.
“There have been plenty of arguments presented here as to why Jensen is wrong headed, why don’t you address some of those instead of ignoring them?”
I was asking for you to list which ones specifically you want answered.
Forum members,
I like this thread! I think it’s very important to criticise the anti-civilisation message coming out of this aspect of the ‘green’ movement. The ‘greens’ are dangerous enough as it is when they’re making absurd claims about ‘global warming’ and ‘topsoil loss’ let alone suggesting that civilisation is fundamentally, structurally abhorrent and abusive.
Everyone hates things like child abuse, and we hate it *because* we’re civilised. There is absolutely no way that any of the structures of a civilised society would support such abusive behaviourt. As the owner of this forum, Gord, I’m sure you agree that being a pedophile is one of the least civilised things people can do.
Keep up the good work and I’ll pop by from time to time to help you guys out against these DJ tools.
Kind regards!
Pro-civ, anti-abuse,
Very few people who know anything about the science actually harbor doubts about some degree of anthropogenic climate change, or the direness of the situation at present, nor do they tend to seriously doubt other problems associated with at least some of the stupid practices that are common among industrialized countries. (Bad farming practices do lead to topsoil loss, dependency on fertilizers, and so on. I’m from Saskatchewan and it’s a fact of life there.)
That said, while I agree that people’s reviling pedophilia and child abuse is a hallmark of being civilized–any sane person would agree these things are evil–I don’t think everyone agrees with how to deal with the problem. We can certainly argue about solutions to child abuse, to global warming, and other problems. That’s why Jensen’s approach is so alarming: no discussion seems allowed among those who adhere to his ideas, apparently in emulation to his own authoritarian style of engagement.
I should note here that my own email correspondence with the man was generally cordial, and that Walking on Water briefly was a useful (if not wholly usable) springboard for my own reassessment of how I teach my own students; but in that same correspondence I mentioned, Jensen seemed to be convinced that his conclusions were correct not in a provisional, “Everything I’ve read suggests this is the case” sort of way, but rather in the “Well, duh, of course it’s this way.”
In fact, one of the points I observed to him was Nick Brooks’ “Beyond collapse: the role of climatic desiccation in the emergence of complex societies in the middle Holocene,” which in fact I pointed out as part of a comment on the same idea Nina mentioned above: that the move into “civilization” as he defines it represents not so much a “break with the past” as a specific survival strategy, adopted in continuity with the hunter-gatherer repertory of survival strategies, and adopted as a desperate last-ditch attempt to handle increasing aridity in the middle Holocene. His comment about the Viridian Greens was pretty revealing:
Now, there are all kinds of reasons I could understand someone saying the Viridians are a bad model for what we need to do. Inactivism doesn’t seem to ring particularly resoundingly at this moment, as I sit in my home with the window shut (because of the caesium in the Yellow Dust from the Gobi desert that is currently scouring Korea) and waiting to see if the ongoing nuclear meltdown in Fukushima is going to end up bathing Seoul in radiation. But to just assert, “Well, they’re wrong of course” seems a bit… well, you know what I think. Not, “Well, I believe they’re wrong” or “Well, everything I’ve read suggests they’re wrong.” Just the pure and simple declarative. I’ve learned never to trust anyone who is too free with the simple declarative sentence.
Finally, Pro-civ, anti-abuse, I’m going to edit your comment minimally, since your parenthetical use of my name in one sentence makes it seem (to me, anyway) as if you’re suggesting something very unflattering about me that I don’t think you intend to suggest.
As for DJ forum member, I agree with Neil: you’re looking more and more like a troll with each post. However, I’ll hazard one more response:
Well, assuming you agree with Jensen on the necessity of bringing civilization to an end, even by violence if necessary, then given all the implications of that (the mass die-off, the starvation and suffering it would entail, the violence and brutality, and so on) I think essentially all of the criticisms deserve to be answered. With references to recent texts that support your claims, and without sidestepping the very valid contents of and commentaries on the criticisms enumerated above. Go on ahead and start with the implicit criticisms in the post, and then proceed on to the criticisms in the comments. Take your time.
Wait, wait, wait. See. Who was denied access to Derrick Jensen’s forum last week? Are you referring to someone specific DJ?
PS: I’m not particularly interested in who couldn’t go play on Jensen’s board last week. Let’s keep this discussion focused on the ideas, okay people?
HI NIna, Gord, and Neil,
Much of what can be said about this most recent discussion very likely has, but I just wanted to make a couple of points:
1. It seems quite clear that DJ Forum member isn’t looking to protect Jensen–he’s looking to protect himself. His (her?) fear is that he might become the next “member” to be booted from the Jensen forum for being “rude.” AKA: not adequately fawning over Jensen as the god-he-takes-himself-to be. I was booted from that forum in a matter of nano-seconds for having the guts to post criticism. In other words, I wasn’t rude at all–I was simply offering arguments that–should anyone actually read them–would have been dangerous to the forum. I know I have posted this link once before, but just for the sake of clarity about what I’m referring to, they can be found here: philosleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/open-letter-to-radical-environmental.html.
2. While I think the notion that Jensen is actually an agent for the Feds is silly (I am quite sure he’s not stable enough for the Feds to want to use him for anything–or maybe he’s just faking the unstable-thing!), what I DO think is that after his first book Jensen saw that he had an audience and an opportunity to cash-in of the possibility of an environmental apocalypse–he saw that he could make a bundle off of fear. From my point of view, this makes him another sort of abuser. It’s ironic in the extreme (not to mention sad and pathetic) that the abuse he has apparently suffered has effectively converted him into the same thing–someone who creates an atmosphere of constant anxiety in order to get his way. He may think his minions follow him because they are truly devoted to “saving” the environment–but in fact, they can’t be. Anyone who seriously pursues the very real dangers to our environment knows that the science does not support many of Jensen’s contentions.
3. Having said that, Pro-Civ/ anti-abuse, is simply wrong about climate change. Climate change is WELL-established science. However much on the opposite end of this spectrum, his comments reflect the very same ignorance that I see in Jensen and many of his followers.
4. I have been working for some time now on a book proposal that gets at the underlying argumentative structure of Jensen’s (and others–George Draffin, Lieere Keith, for example) apocalyptic rhetoric. There is much here that’s philosophically interesting and environmentally important–not because Jensen has much right, but because his aims, I think (and very much like the Tea Party’s–but in reverse) have little to do with the environment–and much to do with the promotion of a certain fundamentally fascist (and I think I can draw another comparison here with the Tea Party) worldview–one that is also implicitly racist and sexist.
Wendy
I have a good reason taking notice of DJ forum m for saying who wasn’t allowed in the forum last week. Because last week I wrote Derrick an email, in hopes of engaging him in some of my concerns, I started it off by bringing to his attention the rude way I was kicked off the board a year or two ago with no reason except “just cause” from the moderators. Very nice people that bunch. I did not ask to be back on the board, but I take this to imply that Derrick is posting and whining about me on his forum now to people I don’t even know. Talk about unprofessional and bizarre.
DJFOrum Member has put the possible murder of Derrick and his family on my shoulders. Derrick has used “you are a rapist” language with me. Sorry but I feel DJForumMember worn out his/her welcome long ago. I feel uncomfortable posting now because of this. Hopefully a good night’s sleep and focusing on the positive and supportive messages will help. But when I ask a question, it usually isn’t to lead the board off topic, its because I knew who she was referring to and why and it is even more bs from someone claiming to be a healthy, and secure author. I have never seen anything like it.
Nina,
I made a throw-away comment about people having vitriol as they have not been allowed on the forum, and the co-incidence that you wrote to Derrick last week has got you paranoid dearie. Never mind.
Nina, I doubt you have ever read my work – you read academic journals? Didn’t think so.
Just to reiterate Gord’s effort to keep some focus: There is much in Jensen’s rather paranoid discourse that has value–at least in the sense that it offers us a clear object of comparison for what an irresponsible and deeply violent environmentalism might look like. We should take from this a call to do MUCH better. To give BETTER arguments, BETTER strategies for a truly sustainable future.
Jensen offers an eco-centrism that I think we do NOT want (or, at least any of the “we” unlikely to survive the end of civilization). But this, then, raises a serious and important challenge–what’s the environmentalism we DO want? Who is this “we”? Whom does it include? what are its central values? How do we conceive human being’s place in this worldview?
In other words, I think a vastly more positive direction to go here is to re-conceive Jensen, et al., as the example against which to develop a counter-dialogue–a defensible environmentalism. After all, if THAT is what we say matters in the end, then all of this talk about Jensen’s megalomania–while no doubt cathartic–is not really to the point.
Does this make sense? What is the point of endeavoring to engage Jensen when we absolutely KNOW the outcome? Why not “go on the offense” as it were and articulate the alternative?
I have little to add to Wendy’s comments except my endorsement, and the renewed desire to see what answers to the challenge she mentions look like:
I’m personally not so interested in reconceiving Jensen, a phrase that frankly brought the movie Alien to mind. I am, however, interested in how a variety of possible answers to that question could be explored and even could coexist as part of the solution.
As for DJfm’s question:
That’s what Jensen would have you think. There are countless avenues of research being pursued into ways around that. Of course, when one is convinced that something is inevitable anyway, it’s hard to convince one that it isn’t… which is one of the more pernicious effects of Jensen’s “preaching.”
I submit that when I considered Jensen’s apocalyptic message, to whatever degree it interested and appealed to me, it was primarily for emotional reasons… it read like apocalyptic SF, more than anything else. But that reaction was, in large part, emotional in nature with a degree of post-hoc justification and rationalization sprinkled on top. I suspect the same is true for many of those who take the man’s ideas seriously, but that most wouldn’t be willing to admit it; there is a curious parallel with evangelical Christians once they deconvert; they often describe a vague sense or fear of their own manifest unbelief, but also a complete inability to face it honestly until they begin to deconvert. (It’s quite common from what I’ve read.) I imagine Jensen’s followers are the same way, which is one reason there’s so much anger expressed by the people who are still following, and so much shame and disgust among those who feel they were “taken in” by his books.
While I appreciate your nice words about the ongoing crisis in Japan and the Yellow Dust, I mentioned those only to make a point. I would appreciate such thoughtfulness applied to the questions that have been put to Jensen’s work more, however.
“given all the implications of [civilisation being brought down] (the mass die-off, the starvation and suffering it would entail, the violence and brutality, and so on) I think essentially all of the criticisms deserve to be answered”
I was under the impression that civilisation as we currently know it was going to come down anyway. Surely you understand the basics of non-renewable resource depletion and how reliant we are on non-renewable resources for our whole way of life?
“as I sit in my home with the window shut (because of the caesium in the Yellow Dust from the Gobi desert that is currently scouring Korea) and waiting to see if the ongoing nuclear meltdown in Fukushima is going to end up bathing Seoul in radiation.”
I genuinely hope you and your dear ones are ok and will be ok. I’m sorry you are going through this.
DjFM:
You seriously confuse “civilization” for institutions that while they are a part or aspect of civilization are certainly NOT the whole of it. Absolutely–out dependence on fossil fuels and its rapid depletion will have potentially devastating effects on human societies–but the notion that this will end civilization is absurd. It presupposes that all art , music, architecture, writing, poetry, medicine is equally dependent on the consumption of fossil fuels. While each of these is certainly involved in one way or another with this consumption, none are dependent on it in the way Jensen’s “argument” must assume. Part of what’s SOOOO disturbing about this “argument” (and your reiteration of it) is that it paints with so broad a brush stroke–it is so profoundly generic–as to be effectively vacuous. It also implicitly assumes that ALL civilization is Western civilization, and that all capitalism is the same capitalism.
Simply not so. And I can fathom no other reason for insisting upon this faulty claim than that it offers a very effective way to fear monger and to justify the sort of violence–genocidal violence–Jensen essentially advocates.
Even IF jensen’s is correct (and he is manifestly not) that civilization will end, that in no way positions him and his followers as legitimate authorities over this end. And it in now way makes him either a prophet or a savior. Though perhaps profiteer gets a little closer.
Gord,
Please note, I had been anti-civilisation for three years before knowing Derrick even existed.
I have come to the anti-civ position based upon my own years of research. The position I was putting forth: that civilisation, in its current incarnation, will cease to be within the next 50 years is acknowledged by Earth Scientists everwhere from Oxbridge to Harvard. It is taught as one of the very first lectures in the Geography BA in these institutions.
All the dreams of technology saving the day are only stop-gaps before the inevitable happens. All those processes rely upon non-renewable resources. There isn’t a single “answer” put forth which doesn’t at some stage rely upon non-renewables. I am saying this as someone who knows Earth Scientists in respected universities.
True, they may not argue for the outcome that Jensen argues for. But there is pretty much consensus that this form of civilisation cannot continue.
Incidentally Gord,
I am aware this is a stressful time for you with the risks you are currently facing. I do not wish to increase your stress.
So I am respectfully leaving your site now.
Thanks for this very thoughtful response, Gord. I’ll look forward to DJFM’s response. I think you’re right too–Jensen has emotional appeal–very attractive and seductive, but not necessarily substantiated. I also think jensen appeals to the guy who wants to be the “manly man”–however Jensen would likely deny it. After all, the events he advocates–blowing up damns–are like scenes from your standard testosterone driven Mission Impossible flick.
Wow! Talk about a cowardly retreat! DJFM has NO arguments at all to offer, so he makes up an excuse about your (Gord’s) stress, and uses that to beat a hasty exit. THIS speaks volumes about DJFM’s motives, and makes his being a DJFM that much clearer.
He offers precisely no support–much less names–to his ridiculous claim about how Earth scientists all agree the end of civilization, but instead tries to hedge the claim with the rider “in its current form.” Well, of COURSE, civilization will be different in 50 years, DJFM, but that is to say precisely nothing. Moreover, there are no such things as “Earth scientists” per se….Do you mean geographers? Climatologists? Zoologists? What? This is rather like referring to “energy.” No such thing as “energy” per se.
Fact is, DJFM has no more an argument to offer than does Jensen himself–not that he couldn’t work towards one, but DJFM was indeed never really interested. And this puts the lie to DJFM’s feigned interest in the environment. Did he have any genuine interest here, he’d either look to defend Jensen as an environmentalist OR begin the actual WORK of articulating an alternative.
But he didn’t. Instead, he wastes folks time. Craps when asked to engage in a REAL discussion of issues. And slinks out.
I think this is an excellent idea. I’ll see if I can synthesise some of my own thoughts on this:
First of all it seems to me that the big problem with most of the “apocalyptic end times” thinkers seems to be that they are too one-dimensional. They think about their pet theory, and then exclude everything that might counter it; but beyond this, they fail to take into account human ingenuity and adaptability, and they also fail to take into account the black swan events which, by definition, nobody can anticipate. There have been many predictions over the last couple of centuries that humankind was quickly headed toward limits. I think Malthus based his predictions on the technology of his day, which consisted mostly of subsistence farming and dependence on the easily accessible natural resources as they existed in his time. But then the industrial revolution came along, a black swan which changed the game, and the world’s population increased exponentially as a result. Another “black swan” was Fritz Haber, who in 1908 discovered a process for fixing nitrogen from the air to make ammonia, which further decoupled agriculture from the limits of natural processes, and allowed us to feed many more people than Malthus could have conceived. There were fears again in the 1960’s with Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, but yet again human ingenuity came to the rescue, this time with the so-called green revolution – a series of technological advances and transfers that increased worldwide agriculture production yet again. Now we are being warned about peak oil and climate change through global warming.
So let’s just summarize: What we have seen up to now is a series of predictions of “the end”, with seemingly irrefutable reasoning based on the situation at that time, but each time we as a race have risen to the challenge and gone on to the next level. So it would be tempting to extrapolate this and maintain that we will also see our way through the current environmental crisis.
However, I think this is too simplistic an approach. The big problem with most writers seems to be that they find a central idea that appeals to them at an emotional level, and they then run with it, focusing on data and research that tends to support their thesis, and ignoring that which does not. It seems to be a fundamental flaw in the way we as humans think: We believe we are logical, but really, deep down, our thinking is based on our early childhood experiences – what’s that Jesuit maxim: “Give me the child until the age of seven, and I care not who has him thereafter”. So what we do is come to an emotional conclusion (based on the foundations laid in early childhood) and then twist the available facts around to match up to what we want to believe, and ignore or try to discredit those facts that don’t agree with our emotional conclusion. We see this increasingly, I think, in the political discourse here in the USA. I see otherwise perfectly reasonable people spouting complete nonsense, and it’s impossible to shift them from their delusions through argument. And this leads to my next observation.
I think that humankind’s biggest problem, the one we are going to have to fix if we are to survive and evolve much further, is religious thinking. By this, I mean the tendency to make belief systems, and then stick with these no matter what new facts come along. I think this ability to “have faith” definitely has its uses – faith seems to play its part in some quite amazing physical feats, as is evidenced by those Karate masters who can punch through incredible obstacles. Also, having faith helps us to get through life’s difficulties – believing that things will get better even in the darkest of times, helps us get through them. But when we combine this penchant for blind faith with another important aspect of our psyche – the desire to form groups and tribes – then we have real problems. In my opinion (and I know I’ll probably lose some people here) religion is the biggest threat to us. Why? Because it prevents reasoned discussion based on the facts. If you try to have a debate with a religious person, then sooner or later you run into a brick wall, because it turns out their foundation beliefs are based on ideas and dogma that cannot be verified, confirmed or disproved. So when you have someone who is willing to put their brain into such a state, then they are primed to believe other untruths too – which is why Fox News has been so successful, even in the face of multiple exposures of their outright lies. The simple fact is that they know that all they need to do is to appeal to people’s basic emotional feelings; facts are secondary, or even completely unnecessary. This is how politics works today, and it is being increasingly refined as an art of mass deception.
Why am I going on about this? Because politics is supposed to be how we effect change in the world. We are supposed to be a democratic society (or at least a representative republic). But democracy depends on an informed electorate, and when the electorate is being misinformed, then we have big problems. How are we going to change the world if the entire process has been co-opted by corporatism and the short term profit motive?
Another problem that faces us is very simple: Human greed and the desire to exert control over others. Authoritarianism, basically (somewhat ironic, given Jensen’s iron grip over his little community). We see this the world over, in the repressive governments that keep their people in poverty while the leaders wallow in riches beyond imagination. It’s obsene, and for a long time I have felt little hope that things can change – until recently, that is, with these protests we are seeing in the middle east. It seems that sometimes, an idea can just catch on in a way that is completely unpredictable – a black swan – and have amazing consequences. We don’t know how all this current turmoil will turn out, but it certainly gives me hope.
My main point is this: It’s complicated. You can’t reduce the future to one single idea, totally ignoring human ingenuity and inventiveness. Most of the time, futurists base their predictions on current circumstances, and those will change. Back in the 1950’s and ’60’s, arguably the golden age of science fiction, the computers of the future still filled entire rooms, and were still just giant calculators. Few people even imagined what they might be capable of. It took black swan visionaries like Alan Kay to take things in a direction that nobody predicted. And nobody really predicted way the internet would develop, possibly the greatest advance of the 20th century.
I think these black swans will continue to happen – both good and bad. It’s simply impossible to predict what will happen. We could get hit by an asteroid tomorrow, or someone could invent a way to make green energy from bacteria. Humankind has two sides: Greedy and altruistic. They are constantly in tension, and they both have their uses in different situations. The hope is that our better side prevails: Compassion, cooperation, realizing that we need our environment to be healthy, we need biodiversity, and everything isn’t black and white. The big problem facing America is our polarized culture – everything being portrayed as right vs left, conservative vs liberal. The truth is, we need both conservative and liberal aspects. What we don’t need is religious thinking based on dogma that wants to harm others. The way Christianity has been perverted in this country by people who want to restrict the rights of others (e.g. gays, or a woman’s right to decide how she handles her own body) is one example of what we need to overcome if we are to survive. When you have people arguing that an egg which was fertilized yesterday is a full human being with rights that actually supercede the rights of the woman carrying the egg, this is not rational thought, it is based on religious dogma. Reasonable people would like to come to a scientific consensus on when a fetus reaches the point in its development when it can be considered a human being, with certain rights. You can’t have a debate in this religious environment. And what we really need right now is REAL debate, based on the facts, based on what is REAL. I would love to see real debates on TV between conservatives and liberals, because there are many interesting arguments to be had about the right way to govern, the right way to run this world. But as long as we base our major policy decisions on dogma, as long as it’s impossible for an atheist to get elected in this country, then I think we have some big obstacles to overcome.
The story is not simple, it’s not black and white. The world is probably not doomed to failure as Jensen predicts, nor is it going to be a wonderful place for the foreseeable future. As resources dwindle, there will be wars, and people will die. This is humanity. We may or may not survive. All we can do is to do our best, as individuals, because none of us knows who might be the next black swan.
Neil
DJfm,
I’m afraid I already said that I am fine, and mentioned the circumstances here only to make a point. To be honest, the debate is a kind of distraction from the situation for me. I have to agree with Wendy that your claim smells a lot like an excuse to run off immediately as soon as someone tries to challenge you to a real debate.
Also, I’m pretty sure intro Geography courses involve discussion of major changes that will be necessary. I’m pretty sure they don’t involve a invocations of apocalypse soon.
Wendy,
Yeah, I think there’s a kind of enunciation of “angry masculinity” in at least some of Jensen’s work. It brings to mind Robert Glover’s No More Mr. Nice Guy, and his notion of the “Nice Guy” syndrome. (Which is guys who are so bereft of self-respect, so messed up by their upbringing, that they are constantly trying to be “good” or “nice” and end up being whining, complaining, angry, petulant, selfish assholes.) In some ways, the violent heroism ideated throughout Jensen’s works (but also constantly repressed, apparently for the sake of “writing more”) smacks of the same repressed masculinity which, in a “Nice Guy,” finally manifests in temper tantrums and verbalized threats, if not actual abuse.
Neil,
A couple of observations. The first is about technological change: I think it was Clive Ponting who argued that each new technology that is supposed to fix things is increasingly more “expensive” (in terms of “cost” understood as energy footprint, waste produced, etc.). It’s possible, but pretty unlikely, that we’ll discover any sources of “free energy” so the production of another sustainable Black Swan is going to be more difficult, and probably take longer at each step, the further we develop.
Secondly, since often the stakes seem to rise for each new technology, it’s important to take into account what Charles Perrow has termed “normal accidents”–the fact that, as he argues in a book of the same name… basically, each new “black swan” gets more complicated, and they’re already at the point where (a) we cannot anticipate every possible state of failure in any given subsystem, let alone (b) how it will affect the whole system, in (c) an infinite set of states. So, basically, we have to accept and expect certain kinds of mechanical failures of an unavoidable and unforeseeable nature. Perrow’s concerned with how to design so the nasty effects are minimized, but his point is that we cannot actually engineer systems that are 100% foolproof; that it’s an impossibility, and with high-stakes technology this matters.
As for religion being a part of the problem, I’ve no doubt that “religious thinking”–or what some theorists have called “magical thinking”–is part of the problem, definitely. I think it’s worth noting that a number of people (my partner is one example) manage to have some religious beliefs without letting them get in the way of rational, intelligent discussion about the environment. I think it’s religion-as-practiced-by-lazy-and-stupid-people that concerns you, and we might as well cut to the chase and ask, maybe it’s just the laziness and stupidity that’s the problem?
(Thereafter, we can ask why so many people are lazy and stupid. I believe John Taylor Gatto has at least part of the answer, by pointing at the education system we all pass through.)
Greenlaw, I have nothing to add but my agreement: environmentalism does need visionaries–and not apocalyptic prophets and windbags–right now. And I agree Wendy’s book is important.
This has been the most fascinating discussion. I’m a lawyer for an environmental group who was starting to read Jensen for some ideas on how our movement could be reimagined and reinvigorated. I’ve found his essays in Orion thought-provoking. But I’ve also found very little meat to his argument and what Gordon has written here exactly captures the sense of criticism I was beginning to develop.
I discovered his discussion forum just yesterday and started to sign-up. Then I read the responses and inquisitions by the “moderators” to other well-meaning people who tried to sign up. I was astonished. I frame my own thinking by debate, and these people clearly want none of that. If they don’t question their own assumptions, continually, repeatedly, and justify them in the face of criticism, how can they make any claims at all?
There is a new talk by Lierre Keith on Youtube at a recent environmental law conference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBQQ6i2rsXk I was amazed at how intellectually vacuous it was. It’s full of jargon, and pseudo-history, and offers absolutely nothing in terms of suggestions or strategy. If this is the future of environmentalism, my God, we are screwed.
And the movement so badly need visionaries right now. Visionaries who do more than critique civilization from whatever faddish -ist perspective. I was about to buy Endgame, and I will now pass. Thanks all.
Wendy, please write that book. It sounds important.
I know the person who started the original DJ forum and from what I have heard and seen being a member-I still am one btw, he is NOT as complicated as he sounds (and any assumptions you make using your own powers of deduction are probably quite true) ;)
Trust your instincts.
Sorry, I’m a little confused MarnieLeeSnakeBite,
Did not Jensen himself start the forum? Are you talking about him? Your comment is very confusing, and I’m not sure whose “instincts” you are affirming as likely true, and to be trusted.
Well, sorry to take this a little off-topic, but no, that’s not really all of it. I’ll just say that Sam Harris pretty much nailed it in his book “The End of Faith”.
Neil
I know of Harris and some of his pet arguments, though I haven’t read the book. I can guess at some of what you mean, and probably agree, but I also know theists who are extremely concerned with environmental issues, and who do a lot more for others than your average atheistic keyboard warrior. It’s easy to be self-righteous, but it’s harder to reconcile one’s experiences with smart, decent, engaged, and utterly helpful people who happen to believe in (and sometimes even to be motivated by a belief in) a deity. Like, donating their labour to the desperately poor, or participating in nonreligious programs or raising funds for victims of sudden catastrophes.
Don’t get me wrong. I am probably way more on the page than it seems. But one cannot be taken credibly dismissing religious folk wholesale when such individuals are around. Clearly it’s not necessarily an impediment to people being sensical; it just often is used as an excuse to do so, or received as such, or promoted as such. Which brings us back to stupidity and laziness, and also the heartbreaking fact about Sturgeon’s Law: it’s true not just of SF and music and food, but also of people. 90% of everything is crap, and 90% of people are content wallowing in this self-same crap.
Ugh.
Why did I come back here.
Wendy,
I suggest you read some Richard Heinberg on peak oil and peak everything. This is also covered in mainstream science magazines, like New Scientist.
I realise you’re a philospher, not a scientist, so this isn’t your field or area of expertise.
Heinberg on energy (free download which debunks all “sustainable” fuel sources: http://www.postcarbon.org/report/44377-searching-for-a-miracle
NS article on peak everything: http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm
peak phosphorus: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4193017.ece
more on peak phosphorus: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phosphorus-a-looming-crisis
on peak copper: http://www.businessinsider.com/peak-copper-2010-4
on peak soil: http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/32f-7da-4-f
peak water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water
peak water is linked to the destruction of ecosystems for agriculture, industry, mining. Peak oil can be made worse through things like mountain top removal for metals that go into our electrical infrastructure, which then destroys two or more ecosystem regions. On and on. It’s all interconnected.
This has been taught in Env Sci education for well over a decade. Wendy, take a walk down into the Env Sci department of your university and ask them about soil erosion, peaks in metals and resources, and what this would mean for industrial societies.
Finally… I haven’t seen a shred of evidence from you that industrial civilisation can be made to be sustainable (or any civilisation previous to industrial civilisation for that matter).
Burden of proof is on you now Wendy.
DJ forum member,
I’m afraid you’re not showing off any credibility by linking articles in Wikipedia and New Scientist… though you seem to be subtly laying claim to it. I and Wendy and, I presume, Neil and several others have been quite forthwith regarding our background and identity. But from you, all we’ve seen is the vague implication that you are some kind of academic, maybe a scientist, and a pseudonym.
You are correct that concerns about Peak Water and Peak Oil have been discussed in academia for some time now. My Geology 101 prof discussed the depletion of aquifers, for example, all the way back in 1996 or so, and at the time it was clear it was something he’d been ranting about in classes for a decade or more… he had the schtick down pat. But you are wrong to conflate that claim with the idea apocalyptic visions have been preached for the last decade in classrooms. He talked about how increased farming efficiency and human adaptation to the environment (for example, laws preventing the idiotic insistence on green, grassy front lawns in desert areas) could help alleviate the problem to some degree; he argued also that people need to be smarter about where they choose to live (for example, away from earthquake/volcanic zones) and that the idiotic notion of nation-states had made that much harder a realization for humanity to digest and follow through on.
As a number of people have pointed out, it’s not like all those peak minerals are all consumed completely. There will be ways to reclaim a lot of it. The stupidity of our throwaway culture suggests one future industry that will be big: trash mining. And as for all those projections, well, they’re worth considering but they inherently present the past as bereft of technological advancements that made the past graph possible… and necessarily assume a lack of similar technological advances in the future. (Let alone new methods for the synthesis of elements, or of replacement materials including fully programmable matter, something people are researching now.)
So, frankly, I’m afraid you are attempting a cheap cheat here. You don’t get to link some science-poor articles in popular magazines (which, ask any scientist, are usually full of tremendous simplifications and outright wrong data–science journalism is pathetic in general), and then declare that the burden of proof is on Wendy. Good grief, you’re arguing for the dismantling of civilization… do you think we’re actually going to take Wikipedia and a couple of New Scientist articles as all the proof we need? No, the burden of proof for your (and Jensen’s) extravagant claim remains squarely on you (and him).
If you regret coming back here, there’s an obvious option not to. (I’m just saying, don’t bitch about it… it’s your choice to engage and discuss and test your ideas–and in so doing, either convince us, or realize your ideas are erroneous–or to refuse to do so. Don’t whine because the process is unpleasant.) However, I hardly consider your list of popular-science links that all agree with your point of view to be a serious engagement with the questions and criticisms raised above. I hasten to add I neither demanded a pledge of allegiance to my ideas, nor required you to be “approved” prior to posting, unlike Jensen’s “forum” that you so generously described for us. (I have not experienced any web forum with such fascistically tight controls on membership or participation, ever, which is saying something. IT is reminiscent, more than anything, of those rallies George W. Bush insisted on during his last campaign, wherein admission to the speeches was screened and anyone vaguely feminist, liberal, or not-Republican was banned.)
Since there are so many questions above, and I understand it is a daunting task to address them all, here are a few questions for you to start with:
Obviously, either Jensen (a) doesn’t realize these implications, (b) thinks they are justified or inevitable anyway, or (c) simply doesn’t care. In the case of (a), why should we take him seriously when such massive oversights are apparent? In the case of (b), I think a burden of extreme proof is on him… which also includes the experimental verification of his ideas; he should be willing and able to talk rationally with those who disagree or have other evidence to present that might show him that his assumed inevitability/necessity is in error. Which leaves us with (c)–that he simply doesn’t care. I am not quite calling him a genocidal maniac, however: I think there’s a little bit of (b) and a little of (c) combined, in this way: the implications are justified away because the idea of an apocalyptic end of civilization is the thing that seems to bear the most appeal for Jensen… for primarily emotional reasons. Which leads to question two:
Cogent responses to these questions would do much to gain a little respect for you around here, while brushing off these questions would, I’m afraid, probably kill your credibility here forevermore.
Greenlaw,
The moderators at the DJ forum have two sections for introductions. Once someone has been approved, their introduction is moved to another (hidden) area of the forum, so as to protect their identity. Consequently, all you see of introductions are the ones that moderators are currently working with, or the trolls/people who don’t understand/etc.
correction:
the new scientist article was on peak metals, especially rare earth metals.
“peak water is linked to the destruction of ecosystems for agriculture, industry, mining. Peak oil can be made worse through things like mountain top removal for metals that go into our… ”
should read:
“peak water is linked to the destruction of ecosystems for agriculture, industry, mining. Peak **water** can be made worse through things like mountain top removal for metals that go into our…”
Peak water is also made worse by things such as cotton farming, and other forms of agriculture, which account for circa 70% of total water use. Water theft has been a major issue of climate activists for years.
DJFM,
Can you explain more about why the security is so tight for DJ’s forum? I’m very amused by this. Is it because he advocates illegal acts? If that’s it, fine. I get that I suppose. Although then the forum isn’t really a intellectual forum at all; it’s more like an organization.
From everything I’ve read it seems like the real issue is that neither Derrick nor his disciples (is that not the right word?) will brook any criticism or debate. See, I wanted to join the forum because I wanted to better understand his worldview, and how it relates, if at all, to what I do, and whether perhaps I might learn something from discussions about his writings.
But, from the introduction page that is public (why are there two?) I really don’t think I would ever be admitted to the forum, because I can’t profess complete allegiance to his premises. I have no idea what the Liere Keith quote means (well, I think I know what she intends, but I’d kind of like to challenge it some), and I haven’t given up on reform of “civilization.”
So, tell me. Would I be “let in”? Why or why not?
Your answer would be very illuminating.
Gord,
I will come back and respond to what you have written when I have more time, over the next day or so. I want to give complete answers to what you raise, as you also raised concerns about my presence here. There is maybe an issue you should be aware of, however I am still considering whether or not this needs to be brought up to you, and also how to go about contacting you privately about this matter.
~
~
Greenlaw,
I’ll quickly answer your questions now.
–
“Can you explain more about why the security is so tight for DJâs forum? Iâm very amused by this. Is it because he advocates illegal acts? If thatâs it, fine. I get that I suppose. Although then the forum isnât really a intellectual forum at all; itâs more like an organization.”
We are only allowed to discuss legal and above ground forms of activism and landbase work on the DJ forum. For instance, someone may be discussing the legal process of putting in a planning complaint about the first mega-dairy to open in Europe. Or someone else may be asking for advice on how to go about cleaning up an area of unowned forest/lake near them after it has been trashed with pollutants. The moderators have been quite clear that we are all to treat the forum as infiltrated by corporate spies or government workers, so to not say anything we wouldn’t feel comfortable saying to a police officer’s face.
Other than that, you’ll have to ask the moderators why they keep such tight security measures.
–
“From everything Iâve read it seems like the real issue is that neither Derrick nor his disciples (is that not the right word?) will brook any criticism or debate. See, I wanted to join the forum because I wanted to better understand his worldview, and how it relates, if at all, to what I do, and whether perhaps I might learn something from discussions about his writings.”
There are plenty of areas on the internet to discuss whether or not civilisation is the central problem. The forum is there for people to discuss how to do effective activism, landbase work, indigenous rights work, food justice activism, social justice activism, etc., without having to go over and over whether or not this work is needed.
The moderators make it clear from the outset that a person wouldn’t go to an Andrea Dworkin forum and expect to debate whether or not child rape is bad: ‘child rape is bad’ would be taken as a central premise in such a place. Rather someone would go to an Dworkin site to discuss effective measures of preventing child rape within their communities. The same is true of Derrick’s discussion forum, we don’t go there to discuss the validity of whether or not civilisation/neo-colonialism/ecological destruction is bad: we go there to discuss what to do about it, and to try to find means of preventing ecological destruction from getting any worse, and try to find means to preventing social problems from getting any worse.
To have to go over civ-is-bad-101 with everyone who wishes to do that, would mean that we’d never actually get around to doing the actual work to prevent deforestation, or to doing the work to clear pollutants from rivers, or doing the work to stop monsanto/nestlé/whomever from harming people and the planet.
We regard the natural world as primary for all life on earth, so seek to protect as much of the natural world as possible. Going over whether this protection is needed every other day, with every other person who wishes to quibble, would get very tedious, and prevent us from being able to work to protect life.
–
“So, tell me. Would I be âlet inâ? Why or why not?”
If you were to complete an introduction, I can’t predict what the moderators would say about that.
I hope the above has given you some indication as to why discussion needs to start from a certain point: simply that going over why areas such as ecocide can be connected to the genocide of indigenous communities, or how ecocide can be a form of genocide in-and-of-itself is one of the basic building blocks accepted by everyone there. And if we are going to support the struggles of indigenous people in the amazon when they are fighting to keep the land in which they live, then to be answering questions over whether or not this has connections to the policies being signed on oil exploration in the whitehouse, gets in the way of us actually doing the work. Similarly if we are having to answer questions on whether or not USA policies on grain subsidies (as allowed by the NAFTA agreement) have impacts upon subsistence farmers in India: discussing whether or not this is colonialism by the back-door is a waste of time, when all we want to be doing is the actual work to stop/change this.
This is part of what is being discussed as means to stop civilisation. Stopping neo-colonialism and ecological destruction is considered to be just as important by Jensen and all of us in the forum; and is considered to be anti-civilisation work.
DJ Forum Member,
I’ve emailed you at the email address you provided when commenting. I assume it’s a real email address, so that is where you can contact me privately.
As for your explanation of why security is so tight on the forum, it seems feasible. However, I hate to break it to you, but “child rape is wrong” is something it wouldn’t take much work to convince most people of… unlike, “civilization must be dismantled, and damn the implications.”
Most sites where contentious issues are discussed either:
(a) include a few FAQs for newcomers, providing evidence for the moderator’s position
(b) create a forum for discussion and debate of basic premises–to the benefit of members who can not only refer people to earlier refutations of arguments, but also discover weak links in their own logical chain, or new data that problematizes earlier conclusions
(c) tolerate argument because it’s a fundamental necessity of both online credibility, but also of falsification of erroneous conclusions
Telling people to discuss with the moderators of that site why their “security” is so tight has, in the apparent experience of commenters here, led to a brick wall; this is why commenters here have been naturally tending to see it as in harmony with Jensen’s apparent behaviour in written correspondence, ie. brooking no disagreement and so on. If you cannot shed more light on the moderators’ motivations, I’m afraid it will be hard for people to discount the idea that the site is just a petty e-fiefdom under Jensen’s cultish leadership.
I’m also struck by two things:
1) Being told to assume a website has been “infiltrated by corporate spies and the government” is bound to create an atmosphere of paranoia, which, again, is useful in getting people to bond, but also in getting them to fear, shut down reasoning, and cling to a daddy-like figure.
On the other hand, perhaps it’s just a way of stopping people from writing anything that might leave the website owner liable… comparable to my own reaction to that histrionic “snitchjacketing” junk above: I cannot, as a site owner, allow death threats to be published or remain on the web. Had the ridiculous comments above turned out to be death threats, I would have deleted them.
I can understand a website owner covering his or her ass, is what I’m saying.
2) Jensen’s constant invocation of violent dismantling seems quite disparate from the allowed methods being discussed on the site. This suggests that either (a) all that violent talk just just a dramatic tool in Jensen’s writerly arsenal, for interesting readers (which is disturbing since it’s a lot to resort to, and since some will take it seriously) or (b) the site maybe functions as a networking place, rather like the way early SF magazines published not just the name but also the full address of fans who wrote it… so they could organize “events” (like, eventually, conventions) offline. I’m not comparing SF fans to Jensenites, but I wonder how much offline, private discussion (and how many illegal actions) have taken place because of the networking the site facilitated.
Nothing anyone can do about that, I suppose, though it is an interesting thought. Certainly saying, “Don’t talk about illegal things here, pretend the site has been infiltrated” suggests, “Be careful who you trust” but also, potentially (especially from a writer who advocates violently “decivilizing”) a message vaguely like, “Talk about that [illegal] stuff off-forum.”
This is too weird. You know, I feel like the rudeness and sabatoge that DJFM has tried to do to me has been overlooked. She never responded to what you said or answered your ultimatum. I am not even comfortable commenting here anymore because of his/her hostile presence. I actually do feel that this whole thing is possibly harmful to me than to anyone. I snitch jacketed their leader? I mean, he doesn’t know the people he lets on his board and i am sure he is talking about it there, and I have been wrongfully accused. I have been on his board, and have talked to him personally since 2002. I could answer any questions you guys might have. Why is this person here? I took the highway and recanted a statement I didn’t even make, and yet she/he got to keep her allegations?
I found this interesting link where Zerzan talks about Jensen. Last time I knew they were buddies, speaking together. Now I realize Zerzan was annoyed with Jensen’s pretending not to be anti-civ on stage, last time i saw him speak he said he did not advocate violence.
anyway, here is the link
http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/9777
its from 2009
but notice he says the same thing, Jensen isn’t open to dialogue in person or in a forum.
Something about pots, kettles and one calling the other tarnished.
Like I said Gord, there is something I possibly need to speak to you about.
then do it twit, are you trying to insinuate something about me? I won’t stay here as long as this troll is here. I don’t think this is fair at all. How dare you and your leader try to stress me out with this bullshit.
Wow! Quite a lot to respond to here–let me see if I can make a few observations:
To Neil Gunton:
1. I see what you’re saying about things like black swan events and human adaptability, and I agree–we human beings seem to be equally prone to millenarian prognostication and invention, adaptation, creative insight. Whether this will apply to our current crisis (or–I think better–multiple crises, climate change, deforestation, desertification, pollution, population, etc…¦) remains to be seen. But we ARE an inventive species (as well as a violent one).
2. I am less convinced of your next argument: “We believe we are logical, but really, deep down, our thinking is based on our early childhood experiences.” No doubt, there’s some truth in this (and Jensen may be the poster child here), but I am convinced that is as too-one-size-fits-all. What happens to us after the age of seven matters greatly–especially if our conditions are economically, environmentally, socially, or politically impoverished. I’m not suggesting you’re just wrong here–but that his isn’t adequate to explain, for example, the behavior of Tea Partiers. I think there’s much more going on here. We seem to have developed a penchant not merely for the rejection of rational argument and respect for facts–but an embrace of the irrational. There is a great deal to be said here, but suffice it for now that the potential to exploit for gain the accelerated, frenzied desire for immediate gratification is the very stuff of, for example, FOX-Style “News,” “reality” TV. Glenn Beck–and, I think–it has its own Far Left manifestation in folks like Jensen and Keith. Does this make sense? Many have not merely rejected rational thinking–but would prefer–even at great great cost–to be titilated by fear/hatemongering. But the folks who stand as apostles for Beck are not really that different in disposition from the folks (like DJFM) who do the same for Jensen.
3. I’d make a similar observation about your argument concerning religious thinking–I agree this is an enormous and complex issue–but I still think that you’re resorting to what Lyotard (a post-structuralist philopsopher) called a “metanarrative,” a single engine explanation for a multi-pronged phenomena.
4. I am right with you with respect to “How are we going to change the world if the entire process has been co-opted by corporatism and the short term profit motive?” I agree too that “it’s complicated.” So I am a little mystified that your arguments are themselves of the metanarrative sort. Just to be really clear–I’m not trying to level any hammering criticism here–I just see what I think to be some inconsistency in a VERY smart series of arguments–and I wonder what you think. âº
To Greenlaw:
1. You’re right–we DO need visionaries, and I think you’re dead-on about Keith–vacuous…¦.but like Jensen she has attracted some incredibly devout followers (to employ Neil’s religious language that I think wholly appropriate to describe the Jensen/Keith cases). Thank you for the kind words–I am working on that proposal, and now actively shopping for educated citizen/nonacademic publishers (I’m a philosophy professor)–any suggestions you might have are most welcome (and I am always happy to provide credentials).
2. The fascist-control of the Jensen forum I think is not that complicated, and I doubt that it’s because he’s advocating illegal actions (folks get way with far more direct advocacy at, for example. Glenn Beck’s forum on The Blaze). No–it’s pretty simple, I think: This is how Jensen controls his message and hence his flock. Let in an apostate–and people might start to question some of Jensen’s reasoning or presuppositions.
3. DJFM’s suggestion that the forum is infiltrated by “corporate spies” or “government workers” is just silly–but creating at atmosphere of paranoia is an excellent way to make folks feel like their part of something special, elite–and it works like a charm to gain unquestioning adherence. The forum does NOT exist to promote the activism DJFM claims. It might well be that many of the folks on it think this, but these, I am firmly convinced, are not Jensen’s aims. Jensen fancies himself as building a kind of primitivist-enviro-army–but the implications of his “activism” are genocidal–hence nothing like the sort of activism DJFM thinks folks are engaging in there (and they may be so) is remotely sufficient for Jensen–this is just the “play-space” for the recruits. If you’d like to see what happened when I tried to get on the forum see: philosleft.blogspot.com/2010/08/open-letter-to-radical-environmental.html. DJFM’s “child rape is wrong”= “civilization must be dismantled and damn the imlications” is truly frightening. These implications include the deaths of untold numbers of the most vulnerable of people–but the Jensenites seem to think they won’t be among them. Elitist in the extreme.
To Gord:
1. Yes, I agree. But I think with Jensen it’s even worse than the “no more Mr. Niceguy” syndrome–I think that a case could be made that he has effectively become the father by which he’d been so abused. This is indeed sad–but equally frightening. Jensen evinces the same authoritarianism in his forum and on his website as his father visited on Jensen and his family–if not physically, psychologically. Jensen’s model of appropriate human interaction appears to remain in the realm of “my way or the highway.”
2. I received this morning an email from an anonymous source (that is, anonymous to me as well) suggesting the possibility that DJFM might actually BE Jensen. This source seemed to feel fairly strongly about this, and pointed to what they perceived as a change of tone and level of sophistication in their prose. I have no idea whether this is true–but thought I should mention it since DJFM is suggesting he contact you privately. Please be careful here. âº
To DJFM: I don’t know why you came back “here.” Only you can address that. And actually, I am pretty scientifically literate. Enough in any case to know that much of what you recommend here is pop-science, and not particularly good science. Especially the Heinberg–who may have something valuable to contribute–but has also been roundly and soundly criticized. The only really legitimate reference you provide here is the SciAm article. And I’ve read it. Thing is, the burden’s not on me at all–not at least in any of the ways you imply. I don’t for a moment deny that we (as well as many other species on the planet) are facing serious, potentially devastating, environmental crises. What I reject is the apocalyptic-it’s us against all-of-them genocidal arguments of money-making-off-fear charlatans like Jensen. Jensen simply is the Glen Beck of the radical environmental Left. And I point this out not–as you may be tempted to falsely dichotomize it–because I represent some corner of the authoritarian Right, but because I see a more sustainable argument whose credentials are still environmentally centered (as well as concerned with issues of social justice) in the Left–a Left I want to see survive the onslaught of the corporatist Right.
Burden’s on you to stop with the citations of poorly-evidenced pop-science–and make out an actual argument. As Gord aptly puts it–you’re attempting a “cheap cheat” here. You could begin by directly addressing Gord’s excellent observations. Burden’s on YOU to be honest about your identity–I am.
Hi Gord,
I haven’t checked that email account in a few days, I will do so later today. I came back to answer your initial post, so will have a look at what I have time to answer now. I felt it useful to answer this point however:
“1) Being told to assume a website has been âinfiltrated by corporate spies and the governmentâ is bound to create an atmosphere of paranoia, which, again, is useful in getting people to bond, but also in getting them to fear, shut down reasoning, and cling to a daddy-like figure.”
It actually has a calming effect on the group. Myself included. Not as any type of weird psycho-dynamic relationship to Derrick or the moderators. Derrick posts in there very little now, except when asked to give advice on how to do things like timber sale appeals, or other aspects of legal activism which he has knowledge of. Or to congratulate us on the success of doing a piece of (legal and above ground) work to save part of an ecosystem or whatever.
‘Security Culture’ is good practice in any activist group: you treat your group as infiltrated, and consider that everyone is a fed. That way you don’t say anything which could either i) get you or someone else put in jail and ii) don’t say anything which could put Derrick in jail. From what I have seen the overwhelming majority of people aren’t interested in doing illegal acts. I remember a few months ago someone did keep posting about wanting to do illegal acts, such as naming specific targets, and they were asked to leave.
The upshot of thinking everyone is a potential fed, is that no one person ever gets singled out as such, and no one discusses those things which could put themselves or anyone else in jail. The moderators and Derrick are very strict on no one on the forum being snitchjacketted: they have security notices in every forum that naming someone as a fed harms the movement.
And besides, if people are *only* discussing work which is legal, then there is no reason to care if the person you are talking to is a fed or not.
I hvae been involved in numerous activist groups since I was a child, and many practiced security culture as detailed above. This is nothing new to me. I have also been in activist groups where there wasn’t good security culture practiced, and they were awash with unhealthy paranoia and witch-hunting members as uncover police continuously. This unhealthy paranoia doesn’t happen in Jensen’s forum as 1) no one is ever accused of being a fed, as this would be snitchjacketting; and
2) no one ever says anything which would be problematic for a fed to hear anyway, so it doesn’t matter who may be a fed: no one cares if an individual is a fed or not.
There is plenty of discussion about what should and shouldn’t be done. I have personally disagreed with Jensen on several occassions, however our conversations were polite and mutual.
My example about the Andrea Dworkin website was to give an example about starting a discussion from a basic point. And I have read numerous pro-sex-industry feminists who describe children being abused when their is financial remuneration involved as being a good thing for the child.
Maybe a better example would be that you wouldn’t go to an Andrea Dworkin site to discuss whether or not pornography is bad: the basic premise throughout Dworkin’s work is that pornography reinforces certain societal structures, and so you’d go to the Dworkin forum to discuss what to do about pornography.
Surely it is up to the members of the forum if we wish to only discuss issues from an anti-civilisation perspective? If we choose to have a closed community within which to discuss this, this is up to us.
As I said, there are plenty of areas on the internet where people can discuss the validity or not of anti-civilisation positions.
I will have a look at your initial post now, and probably answer over several posts.
DJFM (and with apologies to Gord for jumping in to reply), I just have to say that I don’t think I have ever seen so thorough-going a self-deceptive rationalization for a fundamentally fascist police policy in all my life.
“Security culture”? Really, are you serious? It has a comforting effect to pretend that everyone could be a federal agent? And this is some sort of good reason for banning any and all discussion that even just might be critical of the master, Mr. Jensen?
Honestly, I don’t know whether to laugh or feel just really sorry for you, DJFM. It’s hard for me to imagine anyone would buy so entirely excuse-mongering and utterly transparent a line.
The fact is,. there is NO excuse whatever for Jensen’s forum to be so completely unwilling to brook criticism, critical inquiry, alternative arguments, etc. And it’s just plain silly to claim that you know whether Jensen is or isn’t on the forum. He could weigh in as often as he wishes–anonymously–and you’d have no way of knowing.
The only way you could know this is if you were Jensen–and your rather striking improvement in grammar and spelling and your more sophisticated word choice and diction are beginning to make me wonder–not that your arguments are any better.
But you know what, it doesn’t matter because in either case you’re too cowardly to use a name, and too suckered (apparently) by this just awful argument for “security culture” to take seriously. With everything going on in the world, the notion that the feds have time to troll the Derrick Jensen Forum is, methinks, a bit self-aggrandizing.
And there’s this: Jensen advocates under the thinnest of veils GENOCIDE. So if the best folks are doing in the forum is hanging out in trees to prevent them from being logged, or standing outside a Monsanto factory with placards, then there’s no reason on Earth to call this the Derrick Jensen Forum. Might as well call it the Regular-Old-Environmentalist-Forum because that’s all it is. And a yawner for the feds.
So you’ve got a choice, DJFM:
Either you can just bite the bullet and admit that the forum policy is as authoritarian and paranoid as it in fact is, OR you can get on that forum and start advocating the blowing up of dams in true Jensen-Style. If you opt for the latter, you may risk being banned, but at least you will have acted on the Jensenite principles you say you have.
And if you ARE Jensen, that would seem like a good idea. At least you’d not be the hypocrite you are either way–Jensen or not Jensen–right now!