Is Anyone Else a Recovering Environmentalist?

[Sonny Khan]

Having got back from the unciv gathering with a copy of the first issue of Dark Mountain I began reading it last night.  I got to Paul's article on Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist which, quite literally, stopped me dead in my tracks. 

 

Can we call windfarms, tidal barrages, solar arrays etc environmentalism?  Or in calling for 'sustainability' are we simply helping to further the destruction our industrial civilisation can wreak upon the world?  Is renewable energy just the latest version of the industrial revolution, one that, whilst being low carbon, still represents the same ecological destruction, anthropocentrism and alienation from the community of life that causes the problem in the first place, and that will keep springing up crisis after crisis until the current phase of life on earth is consumed?    

 

I find myself in a deep quandary with no obvious way out...  having being heavily involved in environmentalism for the last 6 years, from direct action, projects, community work, traditional campaigning etc, I'm not sure which way to turn, or what the hell I'm doing.  The idea that I've been coopted to support a 'sustainability' or 'zero carbon' agenda that is fundamentally opposed to nature and wildness and seeks to maintain our hegemony on the community of life grates me deeply.

 

My instinct is to defend all living things.  Whether this is by promoting less damaging activities, campaigning against the machine or by physically obstructing destruction from happening.  Yet I now find myself totally unable to determine how the hell to do this. 

 

I instincively feel that resistance to industrialisation and our current mode of civilisation is necessary, yet at the same time feel that pursuing this simply alienates and isolates me from the society that surrounds me and severs any hope of building bridges.  Adopting the stance of promoting renewables and the whole mainstream environmental agenda seems to be a middle ground, a safe option, yet I'm horrified at the thought that in doing so I'm simply becoming a 21st century industrialist, promoting yet another form of industrialisation and helping to facilitate a new round of ecocide.  Simply changing how we generate energy makes no difference to how we treat the life around us, and if anything it seems to lead us into a feeling that we're somehow becoming more in harmony with the community of life, when the reality is the complete opposite - we're almost helping to legitimise ecocide.

 

I don't know where to go from here...

 

 

 

[Paul Kingsnorth]

Thanks Sonny. It's taken a me a long time to get to this point myself, and I know exactly how you feel. It was quite hard for me to write that and I have taken some stick for it, but I had to say it because to me it seems powerfully true.

As for where it leaves us - I guess that is what we are exploring. I think I am grasping towards some possible answers, but the reality is that any approach is going to be imperfect - that's life. Personally, I think that if we were to determine how we wanted to live before we thought about how to fuel it it would make a big difference. A wind turbine can be a wonderful thing or a destructive thing, depending on its scale, it use, where it is sited and - crucially - what it is for.

I also think that we have to strike a balance between brining people with us and being prepared to be isolated sometimes because some things have to be said. It's not always very much fun though!

Thanks for coming. Sorry I didn't get to meet you. This is a conversation that should be continued. H0w about a DM follow-up somewhere in Cumbria?

[Samana]

Hey Sonny,

When you said that you felt alienated and saw that what you have realized makes it impossible to "build bridges" to the rest of society I saw my self speaking in the early months of 2000.

I found you can build the most beautiful bridge from this understanding to the mainstream environmentalist understanding but people will still not walk across that bridge. It is high and scary and they are told a million stories on why their side of the bridge is much nicer-safer-better-smarter.

But be secure in knowing that everyone will cross the bridge either willingly or by force of nature. There is only one way to do this. The truth of environmental collapse has been revealed to conservationists and environmentalists but it has not yet been realized. They are coping with the revelation, and what it implies, by trying to manage the environment while still holding onto some of there old life and comforts. They see our side of the bridge and they think they can pull the two shores together.

Where do you go? Keep losing the story of industrialization you have in your own head and keep an eye out for those others with a clear understanding. When you see harm being committed, search out ways to stop it without injuring yourself too badly so you can fight another day. Keep talking to people, not trying to convince them, just speak the truth without attachment to your own ideas and your idea that you have to "save the earth". Thought, to me, will not solve any of these issues because it is thought that created our problems.

[Sonny Khan]

Hi Paul

A DM follow up in Cumbria would be an interesting one. One of the events i'm currently involved in is an anarchist bookfair (more like an anarchist fete really, since we wont have any books!) this sept 25 in kendal. Might seem an odd place for it, but I'm keen to challenge the underlying stories and narratives that determine peoples outlook, and to present a more appealing alternative, and feel/hope I can get the more active people in Cumbria to come and at least listen for a while. Your article is the culmination of a series of events that have lead me to see myself less of an environmentalist and more as a story teller. All we can do is tell the stories and hope they find a place to settle and take root.

So yes I'd be interesting in helping with some sort of DM follow up in Cumbria. You can email me on [e-mail] or chat here about what when if how where etc.

[Sonny Khan]

Hi Samana

Thanks for the reply - a comprehensive and thoughtful response. Yes, I think you're spot on all round. Talking and not trying to convince people is important - trying to convince people leads to utter exhaustion, emotional collapse and an early death! And it's not a real conversation either. Also I've been thinking lately that a better use of time and energy is, as you say, just to look out for those who might be ready to listen. I had the pleasure of receiving a phone call two weeks ago from someone I didn't know who had volunteered at a local event. After the event we'd got on to chatting and I'd just let slide with a lot of the stuff that we've been talking about, not really meaning to. Anyway, he rang me up two weeks ago and said that he wanted to meet me as he wanted 'out' and didn't know how to exit. I was amazed, given that at the time I wasnt intending to do anything other than pass the time over a pint, and never having had a near stranger ring me up and ask me how to exit the system! (alas, no emergency exit, just a long and winding road)

So maybe you're right about thought not solving the problem - maybe we just enact it in our own lives. The last couple years I've started doing wild food walks locally, just as a way of learning more myself and meeting like minded people, yet I've been amazed at how radical people can get through doing this, without it being my intention at all! (radical in the sense of how fast their views changed, not in the sense of locking on to the nearest JCB) It's almost as though reconnecting with nature at such an intimate level (ie food) brings into stark contrast modern industrial life (supermarkets, concrete etc) helping to spark some sort of cognitive dissonance.

But maybe I'm thinking about it too much...

Samana said:

Hey Sonny,

When you said that you felt alienated and saw that what you have realized makes it impossible to "build bridges" to the rest of society I saw my self speaking in the early months of 2000.

I found you can build the most beautiful bridge from this understanding to the mainstream environmentalist understanding but people will still not walk across that bridge. It is high and scary and they are told a million stories on why their side of the bridge is much nicer-safer-better-smarter.

But be secure in knowing that everyone will cross the bridge either willingly or by force of nature. There is only one way to do this. The truth of environmental collapse has been revealed to conservationists and environmentalists but it has not yet been realized. They are coping with the revelation, and what it implies, by trying to manage the environment while still holding onto some of there old life and comforts. They see our side of the bridge and they think they can pull the two shores together.

Where do you go? Keep losing the story of industrialization you have in your own head and keep an eye out for those others with a clear understanding. When you see harm being committed, search out ways to stop it without injuring yourself too badly so you can fight another day. Keep talking to people, not trying to convince them, just speak the truth without attachment to your own ideas and your idea that you have to "save the earth". Thought, to me, will not solve any of these issues because it is thought that created our problems.

[Ty]

I think these are all valid and true stances on the situation. Even if the decline of civilization is inevitable; even if recycling and saving water and alternative energies will ultimately do nothing to sever the root of our problems; even if living self-sufficiently will do nothing but redeem our individual connection with the planet, I think these things are still important.

When we look at the real problems we are facing and their causes, we are faced with an important decision. We can ignore it, either out of apathy or ignorance - we can choose to confront it, either by protest or direct action - or we can recognize it and accept it.

If it's truly inevitable; if it's happened in the past and we've forgotten about it, living in an unending cycle of growth and collapse, then I think the most important decision we can make is to recognize it and the breadth of its consequences. We may experience a total decline of industrial civilization, but regardless if we choose to expedite the process or fight against it, it's so very important for us to fully understand it and accept it within us. It's unacceptable to realize it's happening and become apathetic. Even if we choose not to fight against the machine, we at least have to still honestly care about what is happening.

This is the only way we can prevent it from happening again.

In ten thousand years after the collapse, will our children remember what happened with enough clarity to prevent a repeat? Keeping this in our hearts and having the power to pass it on to new generations is the key to the longevity of our beings.

I don't think being Uncivilised and being an environmentalist have to be independent. Like Samana said, it can be the most beautiful bridge you can build. I can still recycle,save water, ride my bicycle, support alternative energy, fight against GMOs and capitalism, and feel like a good person in spite of the looming catastrophe that may be waiting on our doorstep.

[Paul Kingsnorth]

Ty, this is an interesting take, and largely one that I share. There are many things worth doing for the sake of doing them. Since I stopped calling myself an 'environmentalist' I find I have actually done a lot more that connects me with land and place, from learning rural skills to embedding myself in a community. The mistake comes when we think these things will 'save the world', or do them because that's the purpose we have in mind. It's my view that mainstream environmentalism right now is as much a part of the growth machine as business-as-usual, and that retreating from, and standing against, that growth machine, is going to involve standing against tidal barrages, windfarms and 'green consuumerism' just as much as it involves standing against BP and the government.

Here's a quote from the great Aldo Leopold with which, if you use it as a basis for a relationship with the natural world, you probably can't go far wrong:

'A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.'

Note the three tests: integrity, stability and beauty. If an 'environmentalist' project promotes all three, it's probably worth getting behind. If it undermines any one, it's probably worth standing against.



Ty said:

I think these are all valid and true stances on the situation. Even if the decline of civilization is inevitable; even if recycling and saving water and alternative energies will ultimately do nothing to sever the root of our problems; even if living self-sufficiently will do nothing but redeem our individual connection with the planet, I think these things are still important.

When we look at the real problems we are facing and their causes, we are faced with an important decision. We can ignore it, either out of apathy or ignorance - we can choose to confront it, either by protest or direct action - or we can recognize it and accept it.

If it's truly inevitable; if it's happened in the past and we've forgotten about it, living in an unending cycle of growth and collapse, then I think the most important decision we can make is to recognize it and the breadth of its consequences. We may experience a total decline of industrial civilization, but regardless if we choose to expedite the process or fight against it, it's so very important for us to fully understand it and accept it within us. It's unacceptable to realize it's happening and become apathetic. Even if we choose not to fight against the machine, we at least have to still honestly care about what is happening.

This is the only way we can prevent it from happening again.

In ten thousand years after the collapse, will our children remember what happened with enough clarity to prevent a repeat? Keeping this in our hearts and having the power to pass it on to new generations is the key to the longevity of our beings.

I don't think being Uncivilised and being an environmentalist have to be independent. Like Samana said, it can be the most beautiful bridge you can build. I can still recycle,save water, ride my bicycle, support alternative energy, fight against GMOs and capitalism, and feel like a good person in spite of the looming catastrophe that may be waiting on our doorstep.

[Ty]

Paul, you are absolutely right. We can't let ourselves believe that any of the modern delusions of green capitalism are going to do anything to save us. The heart of the artist is what will move the blood through these veins, now.

Paul Kingsnorth said:

Ty, this is an interesting take, and largely one that I share. There are many things worth doing for the sake of doing them. Since I stopped calling myself an 'environmentalist' I find I have actually done a lot more that connects me with land and place, from learning rural skills to embedding myself in a community. The mistake comes when we think these things will 'save the world', or do them because that's the purpose we have in mind. It's my view that mainstream environmentalism right now is as much a part of the growth machine as business-as-usual, and that retreating from, and standing against, that growth machine, is going to involve standing against tidal barrages, windfarms and 'green consuumerism' just as much as it involves standing against BP and the government.

Here's a quote from the great Aldo Leopold with which, if you use it as a basis for a relationship with the natural world, you probably can't go far wrong:

'A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.'

Note the three tests: integrity, stability and beauty. If an 'environmentalist' project promotes all three, it's probably worth getting behind. If it undermines any one, it's probably worth standing against.



Ty said:

I think these are all valid and true stances on the situation. Even if the decline of civilization is inevitable; even if recycling and saving water and alternative energies will ultimately do nothing to sever the root of our problems; even if living self-sufficiently will do nothing but redeem our individual connection with the planet, I think these things are still important.

When we look at the real problems we are facing and their causes, we are faced with an important decision. We can ignore it, either out of apathy or ignorance - we can choose to confront it, either by protest or direct action - or we can recognize it and accept it.

If it's truly inevitable; if it's happened in the past and we've forgotten about it, living in an unending cycle of growth and collapse, then I think the most important decision we can make is to recognize it and the breadth of its consequences. We may experience a total decline of industrial civilization, but regardless if we choose to expedite the process or fight against it, it's so very important for us to fully understand it and accept it within us. It's unacceptable to realize it's happening and become apathetic. Even if we choose not to fight against the machine, we at least have to still honestly care about what is happening.

This is the only way we can prevent it from happening again.

In ten thousand years after the collapse, will our children remember what happened with enough clarity to prevent a repeat? Keeping this in our hearts and having the power to pass it on to new generations is the key to the longevity of our beings.

I don't think being Uncivilised and being an environmentalist have to be independent. Like Samana said, it can be the most beautiful bridge you can build. I can still recycle,save water, ride my bicycle, support alternative energy, fight against GMOs and capitalism, and feel like a good person in spite of the looming catastrophe that may be waiting on our doorstep.

[Shaun Chamberlin]

Paul Kingsnorth said:

Ty, this is an interesting take, and largely one that I share. There are many things worth doing for the sake of doing them. Since I stopped calling myself an 'environmentalist' I find I have actually done a lot more that connects me with land and place, from learning rural skills to embedding myself in a community. The mistake comes when we think these things will 'save the world', or do them because that's the purpose we have in mind.

A chap called Charles Eisenstein wrote a quite brilliant piece embedding this insight into the wider realm of our cultural stories. I acquired permission from him to reproduce it on my website (something I've never felt the need to do for an article before or since). I tried to pull out a pertinent quote that made sense in isolation, but I failed, so I can only recommend the whole piece:
http://www.darkoptimism.org/2009/10/16/rituals-for-lover-earth/

Shaun