Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
save the world
lobster
Veteran
Solidarity? Are you Buddly to the Rebelly? ✅🌍🍀🌿
Rebellion starts 7th October
https://rebellion.earth/
How dares u! Eat your greens! Save the Lobster! People to the power!
1
Comments
Wow! It's all very dramatic isn't it....
Yes. Kinda of a real life and death drama ...
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
~ Susan Ertz
Ready? Deady! Go!
https://rebellion.earth/2019/10/02/newsletter-29-get-ready-to-change-the-world/
NEPAL – Kathmandu monks say ‘Enough is enough!’
I’m going on Monday! Really unsure what to expect. I’m not planning to be arrested, though friends of mine are. Got to get to work on my placard!
I have to say, I feel called upon and at the same time I feel conflicted... It seems to be because what I feel most urgent about is protecting the natural world, which is not what they are protesting about. The extinction of the human race leaves me rather indifferent, I honestly think the planet would be better off without humans.
I think that humans have gone far enough, the whole human world mind seems so caught up in corruption, stealing, lying, power-grubbing, money-grubbing... in short samsara seems to have infected the human mind, it’s everywhere.
Help me understand this, it is very far away from my own moral intuitions. I can appreciate and understand wanting to protect the planet and animals from human impact. What I can't wrap my head around is wanting to be rid of humans.
I've heard about the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement before. Are you a member?
Maybe you think humans are irredeemable viruses, a la the Matrix? I guess I generally have a pretty optimistic view of humans, I tend to see the positive in people and regard the aspects you highlighted as more temporary and conditional. At our core I think we are empathetic, problem solvers.
I think my pragmatic mind objects the most. How do you get there from here? Humanity on the whole isn't going to stop breeding voluntarily, so this is either an ineffective solution or needs a movie super villain to see it through.
Que?
Thanos is that you? You seem to have become more extreme?
I not understand either ...
Let me see if I can explain... the natural world has its mechanisms, it is sometimes kind and sometimes cruel, but everything fits together for the benefit of other things. Seen from the perspective of the planet, it all contributes to healthy, thriving ecosystems. What is not used by one species becomes food for another.
What do humans really contribute on a planetary scale? We kill off animals, we fish the seas until they are deserts, we burn the forests. And we dump in plastic, overproduce carbon dioxide, and make tons of electronic waste. We destroy ecosystems, replace them with farmed monocultures, and introduce poisons into the environment.
So from the viewpoint of a living breathing planetary ecosystem humans are not a good thing, and we have created our thinking in opposition to nature. I don’t think humans are irredeemable, they could take a turn for the better but as things stand the situation is not positive.
I think nature will survive whatever humans do — it would have to go very wrong for humans to turn Earth into another Venus — but I wonder whether the planet will ever return to its glory days of giant animals and plants and unrestrained forest landscapes.
Dear Friends of Human survival, echoed in eco survival,
A second adult rebellion, for adult workers to strike will occur from 20th September.
“We’re walking out of our workplaces and homes to spend the day demanding action on the climate crisis, the greatest existential threat that all of us face. It’s a one-day climate strike, if you will – and it will not be the last. This is going to be the beginning of a week of action all over the world. And we hope to make it a turning point in history.”
https://rebellion.earth/
Arrest the planet! Free the trees! Power to the Wind!
Ryokan was writing about the decline, as he saw it, of true Buddhist practice in his time, but the moment I read it I thought of the climate crisis and the feeling it evokes in me.
How can we address the Wrong Livelihood, the Wrong View, of the whole human race? Translated literally, Ryokan asked, “How can a single stick keep a great house from falling?” The only way is to work together. It’s a collective problem that requires a collective solution. I’m not sure what part I’ll be able to play next week when the Rebellion begins, but I know that success will only be achieved by cooperation.
Don't you care about yourself or your loved ones? What about other people and their families? You're indifferent about them dying off or not able to have families of their own? What actually happens when people die off either in a whimper or a bang?
What about art and science, spirituality and philosophy? No other species can ask why or how, isn't that worth protecting?
Maybe it goes to @Bunks question of why are we here? Maybe I'm not such a nihilist thinking that there is no reason other than what we make of it. Maybe I do actually think our purpose is to learn and progress.
https://fractalenlightenment.com/37420/life/we-are-the-universe-looking-back-at-itself
@lobster you going down (or up, or staying- I dont know where you live)? I can only go for first couple of days, but would be great to put a face to the Lobster
Also, I agree the planet would be better off probably without humankind, or at least in this system, but there are possibilities of working closer and more in tune with the world. And XR tries to promote a radical system change, because its not inevitable that man has to destroy nature but it almost certainly is within a Capitalist system with, as Greta said, 'fairytales about eternal economic growth'.
Well done you.
Bravo. 💗👍🏻🌍🙏🏽 I am a figment of my own imagination, looking for a face before I was born. I am not able to attend ... except as a menu item 
https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronbastani/status/1180105857893355520?s=12
No, not really. I feel connected but I don’t feel it’s necessary for them to carry on existing, they’re welcome to come and go as they please. Yes, children are a joy, but there are many joys in life of which we may partake during our brief time here. I applaud folks who decide not to have children, they leave more room on the planet for the wild.
Art, science, spirituality and philosophy are beautiful things, but it doesn’t change the basic position that the natural world is more worthwhile than the human world. All humans have created that is beautiful has been subverted by greed and money. A beautiful painting is an investment, a piece of science is evaluated for its military potential.
I think if you really look at the question of meaning, then you come to the conclusion that the universe doesn’t really care... it carries on regardless of what happens to us. So I don’t think there is such a thing as a purpose, a meaning, other than what we grasp for.
The most I can say is that humans should function as caretakers of the planet, and we don’t need 7bn of us to do that.
Shit @Kerome, that's cold. Far be it from me, but your lute strings are way too tight.... This is unskilful View
This might qualify as anti-natalism. The view that non existence is better than existence. And I have a feeling that it will please most people to continue on being. Is the world really better off if the people who actually care about the planet and are in a position to create children who have the potential and concern to solve our problems don't do so? Especially while billions of others will continue on reproducing regardless.
That view is a human construct too, there's nothing intrinsic about it, its also a meaning to grasp on to. The planet isn't a conscious being that can feel pain or joy, love or fear. The thought that it is is just an idea that helps us care more for it.
To who? Because some people care about those things means it's all irrelevant?
Yeah maybe, I think that is generally my view. I guess I didn't realize the meaning I give to human destiny, for lack of a better word. I arbitrarily care about humanity's future, I believe in our potential. I value the ability to understand the universe and build a pocket of warmth, meaning and order out of an uncaring, chaotic and cold universe.
I agree, how we get there from here matters. If you're on board with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, I can learn to accept that, not everyone has to or should value the same things. Just don't become a member of the Involuntary Human Extinction Movement.
We of Earth are moving ...
https://oneearthsangha.org/articles/moving-mindfulness-from-me-to-we/
I’m not sure it is. Humanity was birthed by the earth and it’s ecosystems, and the whole planet is a tremendously complex whole which contains a number of sibling species to man which might have the potential in a few million years of evolution to also be conscious... think of gorilla’s, dolphins, whales, octopi. We seem to have disowned that rich family, and are laying waste to our womb and destroying our siblings habitats. Does that sound like something a sane species would do?
No I’m not saying it’s irrelevant, but look at those works of art. For example, take Matisse. Unless you’re reasonably wel conversant with the art world, you may never have seen a painting of his. Yet we have the means to view those paintings on our screens with great ease, so why are there no television programmes about him being shown to people. We don’t disseminate or enjoy the things of beauty we create, in many cases.
I also believe in humankind’s potential. However, I don’t think we’re doing a very good job reaching it, and I have very little faith in that changing. The quality of the people in charge seems to be getting worse over the last few decades.
There is such a thing?
Humans are just much more capable. Other species over consume their habitat and over populate. The difference is that they don't have the ability to adapt and create different sources of life, they are subject to large scale die offs when they get out of balance. It isn't some sort of superior moral character that keeps them in balance. Humans may very well be reaching a point where our creativity can't bail us out and the natural law will have its way.
I include Snoop Dogg, Game of Thrones, and Pictionary in that too. No need to be high falutin.
Take a quick look through history and it is littered with wicked, power hungry men and oppressive systems. I don't think progress is a straight line that equally touches everyone at the same time and there are lots of persistent and new pressing problems today, but I can't think of a more prosperous, just time throughout history. I might be convinced that humans are better suited for pre agricultural hunter gatherer societies but I guess I just don't find that kind of life appealing.
I'm just saying. With the increasing ability and ease of things like gene editing it might be possible for a small group of committed Extinctionists to manufacture the end of humanity.
@Kerome observes
Yes indeed, pesky humans! I feel exactly the same way every day after reading the newspaper, but find it best not to attach to the feeling - it's a dose of poison, best to spit it out.
What humans are doing is not qualitatively unique in nature, in fact it happens fairly often - conditions favor the growth of a particular organism, which can grow and multiply without restraint until the resource is exhausted, and then comes the inevitable crash.
What is unique is that we are doing this, not in the context of a particular habitat zone, but in the context of the entire global biosphere. There will be a crash, the machinery is in motion and has been for a very long time - are we intelligent enough to salvage anything, or not? Pessimism, I think, will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Optimism will be disappointed as well, but is the best we can do at this late stage of the game.
Or so I try to convince myself.
Quite right @fosdick, our intelligence allows us to use a variety of resources and to switch from one to another to cover the entire global biosphere. It’s mostly in aid of food production and consumption, to feed our 7 billion mouths. But we’re now starting to see cracks in the Earth’s ability to cope, such as the decrease of bee populations and decrease of wild insects.
My dystopian vision is a hot desert planet always stretched to the limits of its resources as what remains of mankind tries to eke out a living on whatever topsoil is left, with humanity as a perpetual plague on the biosphere, shrinking and growing as the planet struggles. I don’t think a crash will take all of humanity with it, it will just decrease the earths carrying capacity. Perhaps humanity will end up growing more food through aquaculture.
This was good though...
Great video @kerome.
I have tried some of the other bread flours eg. khorasan and buckwheat. You can even buy easy multi seed flour mixes for your bread maker. Yum I say. I bet bison are delicious, they do not kill the grass by chewing right down as beef cattle do ... good plan. Love the sustainable salmon fishing.
In the uk we have more cows grazing on common land again. Deer and ancient breeds. ... one of my favourite crops, beans, take nitrogen from the air AND add it to the soil. Food and fertiliser in one ...
Iz we saving world yet?
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/environmental-benefits-of-organic-farming-2538317
I honestly think we are on the verge of a global awakening and I do kind of find it interesting that humans can still be looked at as a virus in a Buddhist type of community.
Why would anyone prefer humans to become extinct over waking up?
Perhaps Buddha would have served us better by spitting that bit of rice out and continuing to rot under that god forsaken tree.
We are not a virus to the Earth anymore than any other animal. To see it in terms of man vs. nature is to perpetuate the problem because we are not separate from nature. We work in cooperative effort with nature or not at all and if certain people could only see through their greed and egos at how much we could accomplish if every perspective were nurtured maybe they would have an epiphany.
Ok, I'm going back to bed for a while.
I'll try this again when I'm not in such a sarcastic and pissy mood.
I do have a good and dear friends celebration of life to attend this afternoon.
Maybe after that.
If we could guarantee that humans would wake up then that would be great. But I think the amount of the human population interested in waking up is about 5%, and most of them are already involved in the new age or Buddhism. The vast majority of the population seem to be busy with money and materialist fantasies.
That’s why I consider extinction not to be a bad thing, the human race has a few good areas to it but it has not been good news for the planet.
That I can’t agree with, I do think Buddhism has been a boon to human thinking.
Well, 50% of the Earth’s land area is either agriculture or under urban development, and a lot of the rest is desert or mountain, so our effect on the planet is rather huge. We are transforming our environment, and the fertile wildernesses are disappearing. The number of wild animals has decreased by roughly 50% since the 1970’s.
It’s all very well to say that the right view is that “we are not separate from nature”, but that is not how our companies and governments act. They are driven by profit, and take the economists view of resources, gain and loss to create a mathematical view of the world. In order to wake up to a better planet requires everyone from CEO’s to shareholders to governmental functionaries to banks to wake up to the biosphere emergency.
That still seems to be a long way away, and there is no guarantee it will ever happen.
Then the only solution is extinction?
Not nurturing the possibility of a more awakened society, no way. That sounds like too much work.
Best off to just let it fester until it all reaches the natural conclusion of our demise. Why bother trying? Oh, woe are we... fiddle dee dee, my hands are clean. But they aren't.
I think apathy is a greater problem than greed here.
Human civilization has been around for 10,000 years. A small blip really in evolutionary scales. We are evolved to operate in intimate groups of maybe 100 people, but we are attempting to live in large scale anonymous societies. As Josh Korda of Dharma Punx puts it, we have 1.0 version brains attempting to live in world 5.0.
The human brain is able to be flexible and cooperate on large scales with complete strangers. Ants cooperate on large scales but are inflexible and are in a constant state of mass warfare with other ants. Apes cooperate flexibly but can't extend that to large societies and are often incredibly brutal to other bands.
Humans can learn and adapt. Large scale, distant problems such as climate change seem to be difficult for our psychology, but I think we are better solving problems that are immediate and in our face. As we feel more directly the effects I'm pretty sure our efforts will also increase. I don't imagine we'll get away without lots of suffering and difficulties, but maybe in the long run we need to get punched in the face to actually learn some lessons.
I didn't make this argument that well before so I'll try again. Whether it is good for people to not have children. It is a bit of a paradox, on the one hand the world is over populated, so it makes sense to have fewer people in it. On the other though, I don't think we'll solve our problems by being able to reduce the population in any kind of time frame that matters. We need to solve our problems more directly and for that we need problem solvers. This is the paradox, the more people we have, particularly people who have access to quality education, an awareness of environmental problems and aren't so mired in the day to day struggle for survival (children of people who would even have the thought to not have children for environmental reasons) the more potential problem solvers there are. Would the world be better off without the Greta Thunbergs or Jon Kabat-Zinns or Nelson Mandelas? In addition to collective action there are occasionally brilliant and driven people born and raised in the world who make a vital difference.
It may take us another 10,000 years to get it all right, but if humans live for another million or billion years? I don't know, I think intelligence is special and may not be something that arises so easily in the universe, I think its worth protecting.
As I entertain the idea of voluntary human extinction it feels depressive and defeatist to me. Sort of like being suicidal not because you hate being yourself so much but because you feel like a fuck up and don't want to hurt those around you anymore.
All I said was that the extinction of the human race left me rather indifferent. The planet would carry on without us, producing more and varied species, so I see some pluses and minuses each way.
Being an educator has so far not been one of my talents, but I do my bit where I can. I do think it is an educator’s problem, perhaps a motivator. But the greatest minds in the world have not managed to awake society, despite some significant efforts.
Perhaps it is. You see most of the human race running around chasing short term things, new gadgets, food, housing, without really taking on board longer term concerns or broader issues beyond the immediately personal.
Here's a brand new talk by Gil Fronsdale, Caring for the Earth by Caring for Ourselves. In it he talks about the importance of connecting with nature and removing the sources of greed in ourselves to be an example to others how it is possible.
https://www.audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/10542.html
I can definitely understand that. But it depends on how rare life is — If Earth is a once-in-the-galaxy prodigy of fecund life, we should be taking a lot more care of it, and should be making an effort to see that more of its species flourish. If on the other hand it turns out that there are 10,000 earths in the galaxy, we should be focussed more on bringing the mystery of consciousness to a better fruition.
So as far as voluntary human extinction is concerned, I’m on the fence. I certainly don’t think humankind has been doing a very good job looking after the other species on the planet, earth may have given birth to us but that doesn’t entitle us to just do and take whatever we want. Unfortunately the rest of the human race doesn’t see things like that.
Rebel meditation ...
https://m.facebook.com/events/3007082426032905/
Rebel Rebel, you've torn our press
Rebel Rebel, your facebook's a mess
Rebel Rebel, how could they know?
Hot tramp, I love Giai so!
David Wowie
Bonus track
We can be heroes, just for one day ...
But I think we have to realise that what we are doing as a species is unsustainable. The growth in welfare of the poor portion of the planet’s population is asking for more resources, more milk, more meat, more water, more bathrooms, more airco, more cars, more CO2... everybody wants to live the way a wealthy American or European would, and it asks a lot more of the Earth’s resources. On top of that the world population is still continuing to grow, and by not tackling that we are just heaping up problems for the future.
Whether the human race survives or not, we are going to need to get the world population down to a reasonable level to manage our footprint on the earth. And that is not going to be easy.
As a young Muslim man declared on a heated debate programme on television some time ago: "we don't need wars or violence to beat you. We will just keep breeding and outnumber you. You could suggest we stop; but we won't. Allah tells us to have children, so we shall. "
Try fighting that kind of logic.
Yes, as I said earlier it is an educator’s problem. A lot of these very backwards approaches require a lot of education, not just of the young but of the middle aged. Perhaps a worldwide 1 child policy is going to be required.
The two main ways to reduce the number of children people have is the education and empowerment of women and urbanization. When children are likely to survive people have fewer and instead invest more in each child.
The population is expected to peak at around 9 billion and then slowly decline. In addition to the benefits of a smaller population, a declining population has its own problems. The number of young people having to provide and care for the older generations is a real challenge. For example, as a result of China's one child policy they are facing what they call the 4,2,1 problem. Each child will be responsible for caring for two parents and 4 grandparents.
Not sure you can get Jon Oliver over there, but he just did a segment on the unforeseen negative effects of the policy.
Article about the decline of the population.
https://medium.com/s/story/by-the-end-of-this-century-the-global-population-will-start-to-shrink-2f606c1ef088
The other problem China had was it's prevalent opinion that it was better to have a boy rather than a girl. This led to two problems: abandoned new-born baby girls, and a huge eventual deficit in eligible young girls to marry.
Yeah, that was one of his main points too.
Trained and honed for peaceful protest ...
We Are Buddhist
Nothing to the Resistance
@lobster are you about? Send me a message if you’d like to meet at the protests one day. Sad I missed this meditation, although I did catch a great samba band performance in the rain.
Sorry @adamcrossley I am an 'uncooperative Crusty' as recently described ... by Doris/Bore US 'johnson' the infamous Brexit Pollution Terrorist ...
Crowds, noise, police, politics, dharmaists and flockings are in my way ... so tend to go around them.
... did I go wrong again
There are various projections, even the UN has more than one, a pessimistic, optimistic and neutral ones, with as idea that reality will fall in between those extremes. The pessimistic one just keeps on rising.
It does indeed, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go through it. It’s ultimately necessary to get us to a liveable planetary population without scarcity of key resources. There have been projections that say that before the end of the century we will be having wars over the scarcity of water.
The question is, what to do about it? Our wishes and ideas need to be tied to solutions to be worthwhile. The birth rate in the developed world is already below replacement level and continues to fall everywhere. And there are rarely perfect solutions without downsides, we can still make the calculation to do something but its important to consider the drawbacks and potential unforeseen consequences in determining whether an action is worthwhile overall.
Reducing the population is also a way different proposal than extinction.
Im open to either. From what I am seeing there is still going to be significant population growth in places like Africa and Asia, while net populations even in developed countries continue to grow, so I am not at all convinced “The problem will solve itself” and we can just sit back.
What do you mean by the problem will solve itself? I mentioned the effects that empowering women, urbanization and I would add material development have on reducing birth rates. Those things aren't givens and more efforts can be put into them. This isn't something you can just snap your fingers and change the numbers, it'll take time to turn. I think putting our energy into helping people survive and thrive during the slowing and decline of the population will be more effective and efficient than many of the heavy handed approaches I can imagine intent on expediting the decline.
What exactly would you propose as solutions?
Even if I were to propose the perfect solution, it’s unlikely to be something you can turn a key and implement individually... It’s hard to even see something that you can contribute to on an individual level, beyond not having kids.
But some lessons can be learned from what happened after the Black Death in Europe in 1350 AD. It killed an estimated one third of the population, and in the years following people were pretty happy about that... still the population recovered.
The point being, this is something we as a species need to get to grips with. And whatever the solution is, it needs to be pan-generational and robust, and if we want to preserve some of the wilderness habitats of our world it’s going to need us to give up some useful land area.
I think what @Kerome says about the black death is what will happen. Nature will rebel indiscriminately against the human virus, with a more virulent species ...
Aye caramba!
That is a terrible prospect, build up your immune system now. Abandon ship, children and lobsters first ... 🦞
I think that's pretty much what I'm trying to say too. I think there are too many people and that we'd be better off with maybe 3 or 4 billion living in dense, efficient cities with large tracks of wilderness.
It seems to my mind where we might differ is in the pace of the transition. I think its more like a century or more long transition and I think in the long run often people, and whole civilizations, need to experience the negative effects of their behaviors to really internalize and learn lessons. It would be great if humanity woke up one day and decided to do things differently, changing laws is one thing, changing the human heart is another.
I think it really comes down to greed and desire... if we all keep wanting a house, two cars, three kids, three vacations, meat on the table every night, the latest gadgets to play with, then consumer society will keep serving up these things at the cost of the planet, and especially the wildernesses.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/vested-interests-public-against-climate-science-fossil-fuel-lobby
In terms of saving the world, some stricter laws against lobbying would go a long way. For major financial interests to get their way all the time against scientific or natural organisations seems a travesty of justice... I think those people who backed lobbyists against the scientific view should be hit with some stiff financial fines.
It’s interesting to see where this thread has gone. I did come across women this week, at the Extinction Rebellion protests, who have joined BirthStrike. They are pledging not to have children until climate change is brought to an end. I think it’s more because they don’t want to bring children into a dangerous world, than it is about overpopulation. But it does show that some people are beginning to question things that we’ve always taken for granted, in light of such an existential threat.
I agree that the planet can’t support the present population with its present level of consumption. It seems like education is the best means of reducing the population, and government-led system change is the best means of reducing pollution etc.
It’s a step forwards, but ultimately I think overpopulation and overconsumption are bigger threats than climate change. If the planet warms up by a couple of degrees, the weather in Britain gets a bit more Mediterranean, I don’t think that is the end of the world. Yes it means enlarging desert zones, coastal areas that flood and freshwater glaciers that melt, but the problem ultimately seems manageable barring a few million refugees.
I don’t think it is possible to leave consumption as it is. The only check on what people consume is financial, which still ultimately puts pressure on wilderness areas worldwide.