Production

[Alan Durant]

I haven't quite got up to speed with what Dark Mountain stands for and the name unciivilisation worries me, as much of what I think of as civilisation I would like to keep.
Does the idea of production for need and not for profit fit with the ideas of supporters of the Dark Mountain project? As a simplified example would not the production of solar panels be a good idea if coupled with the discontinuation of production of private cars. Such a radical change would have to be done under a system of social ownership of such industry as we decide we need. The elimination of production of those things that we do not require or would actually be of benefit for us to do about would at the same time reduce energy demands.
There is much both natural and man/woman made that we should cherish. What I think we need is the power to decide what we want and need and not to have these decisions made for us by a handful of individuals and groups who can only make decisions based on profits and power.

Alan

[Samana]

The question I would ask myself is "Do you need solar panels?"

My honest answer to myself is no, I do not need them. Humanity has survived much longer without then with them.

[Alan Durant]

We should of course decide what we do or don't need or want. The point is we should decide and we shouldn't be dictated to by a system designed for profits not people and the environment we inhabit. I personally we welcome efficient solar panels at an affordable price, especially when incorporated into roofs. Hungarians traditionally cook in a cauldron on a tripod over an open fire, its great fun but I wouldn't want to have to do it every day.
Humanity has also survived much longer than the time we have had writing.
Must run the fruit trees are, alarmingly, starting to fall over due to the record rain fall and high winds.
Alan

Samana said:

The question I would ask myself is "Do you need solar panels?"

My honest answer to myself is no, I do not need them. Humanity has survived much longer without then with them.

[Sonny Khan]

production for need and not greed would get my backing. Paul made an interesting point on another thread, which is that we need to decide how we want to live before we decide what we need.

Personally I quite like solar panels, but not the industrial chain that produces them. If I had a choice - solar panels and industrial complex or no solar panels and no industrial complex - I'd go for the latter. (Cooking over a fire every night is one element of my vision of heaven on earth! )

Of course thats not the option presented to us. The industrial complex comes comes whatever we choose - whether its churning out cauldrons or solar panels or power plants. So with that in mind yes, i'll have a solar panel, and some bolt cutters, d locks, arm tubes, superglue...;)


Alan Durant said:

We should of course decide what we do or don't need or want. The point is we should decide and we shouldn't be dictated to by a system designed for profits not people and the environment we inhabit. I personally we welcome efficient solar panels at an affordable price, especially when incorporated into roofs. Hungarians traditionally cook in a cauldron on a tripod over an open fire, its great fun but I wouldn't want to have to do it every day.
Humanity has also survived much longer than the time we have had writing.
Must run the fruit trees are, alarmingly, starting to fall over due to the record rain fall and high winds.
Alan

Samana said:

The question I would ask myself is "Do you need solar panels?"

My honest answer to myself is no, I do not need them. Humanity has survived much longer without then with them.

[Alan Durant]

Hi Sonny, arm tubes?e
Anyway I think that lumping everything together as the "industrial complex" can be a little misleading. I feel what we need to get rid of is Capitalism. Vast amounts of goods etc. are produced for no good reason or at best badly envisaged reasons. These we could happily scrap. However effective production of useful things with peoples control and agreement seems to me to be OK. Of course we may not all agree on what is required and how to produce it. This can only be resolved by a truly democratic system. I mean deciding what is done and not just voting for the liar in the nicest suit.

Alan

[Sonny Khan]

I'll settle with that, though of course its quite hard to understand what anyone means by capitalism, (and yes 'industrial complex' is pretty vague as well). Some would argue that our economic system is more communist than capitalist (central banks, graduated income tax, etc - check the communist manifesto for comparison). Still, I get what you mean - generally an economic system run purely for profit and greed, taking no account of 'externalities' (ie human suffering, ecological destruction, resource depletion, social breakdown etc), is not a system that is going to lead to anything but catastrophe.

The big question is, of course, can a system that takes into full account such 'externalities' still produce things like solar panels for the masses? I suspect not... but have no evidence to support. What's your thought?

[Samana]

Yes, capitalism encourages exploitation, I agree. But industrialization is what is unbalancing the ecosystem. It will do no good to have an Anarchist society with industrialization. Getting rid of profit does not strike to get to the root of the problem. If we still want to use oil we will use oil, Anarchist or Capitalist. Anarchism will slow down industrialization, but our selfishness and delusion of separation will keep it alive.

Anarchism, to me, comes only after a spiritual insight; It is the natural result of a deeper understanding of living.

Also, industrialization is a product and cause of our over population. The more people we want to live longer and have more babies, the more technology we will have to use as a lever to support them. Until the human population is much lower, the earth cannot support humanity cooking over wood stoves, and the earth will self correct.

The truth is, we all want to live, but none of us need to live. We all want to be comfortable, but none of us need to be.

And on writing as a technology; The only use I have of writing is to use it to end writing.

Alan Durant said:

Hi Sonny, arm tubes?e
Anyway I think that lumping everything together as the "industrial complex" can be a little misleading. I feel what we need to get rid of is Capitalism. Vast amounts of goods etc. are produced for no good reason or at best badly envisaged reasons. These we could happily scrap. However effective production of useful things with peoples control and agreement seems to me to be OK. Of course we may not all agree on what is required and how to produce it. This can only be resolved by a truly democratic system. I mean deciding what is done and not just voting for the liar in the nicest suit.

Alan

[Alan Durant]

I suppose what I mean by Capitalism is a system where the wealth is owned by a few (land, production etc.) and the majority are as a consequence of this obliged to sell their labour. Profit is value, that is the part of labour, that the Capitalist do not pay for. I disagree that our present system is in any way communist. In the UK for example some 10% or so of the population own 90% of the wealth. I would think the externalities of say solar panel production would be sustainable but this was just as an example. There are huge affects we could have just by not producing say armanents for an easy example. Also we have to think about things like fridges. I don't know how I would get by without mine and we even freeze garden produce. I suppose the point is that other than on those things we can personally control we have no say in what is done and how.
Communism for me mean public ownership and control at all levels combined with real democracy not the rubbish systems that litter the world.

Sonny Khan said:

I'll settle with that, though of course its quite hard to understand what anyone means by capitalism, (and yes 'industrial complex' is pretty vague as well). Some would argue that our economic system is more communist than capitalist (central banks, graduated income tax, etc - check the communist manifesto for comparison). Still, I get what you mean - generally an economic system run purely for profit and greed, taking no account of 'externalities' (ie human suffering, ecological destruction, resource depletion, social breakdown etc), is not a system that is going to lead to anything but catastrophe.

The big question is, of course, can a system that takes into full account such 'externalities' still produce things like solar panels for the masses? I suspect not... but have no evidence to support. What's your thought?

[Alan Durant]

I'm not sure I'm exactly following your argument but I'll do my best. I think that Capitalism is the cause of over production because of the need to maximise profits. There are a great many things we needn't produce, the easy example being arms. Your right, if we have control and will still want to use oil we will. But I think and hope that the fact of having real control over what we do will allow us to come to logical conclusions and live life sustainably. I think people can be altruist as well as selfish and we have the ability to be clever and work things out. I'm afraid I need some explanation of what you mean by "the delusion of separation". I'm not sure I do spiritual insights, they seem to mean so many different things to so many different people, perhaps the point.
Overpopulation is most frequently found in relatively "under industrialised" countries. This is usually linked to the need for manual labour on family farms, security for old age, low aspirations, lack of education and lack of access to family planning. Interestingly its in the industrialised countries the population growth is low or even population levels declining. This is often linked to improved provision of health, wealthfare and education. I do however agree with you that the present industrialised society allows such high population levels. Having said this the bulk of the world s population uses very little of its resources. How are you proposing we should lower levels of population?

Alan

Samana said:

Yes, capitalism encourages exploitation, I agree. But industrialization is what is unbalancing the ecosystem. It will do no good to have an Anarchist society with industrialization. Getting rid of profit does not strike to get to the root of the problem. If we still want to use oil we will use oil, Anarchist or Capitalist. Anarchism will slow down industrialization, but our selfishness and delusion of separation will keep it alive.

Anarchism, to me, comes only after a spiritual insight; It is the natural result of a deeper understanding of living.

Also, industrialization is a product and cause of our over population. The more people we want to live longer and have more babies, the more technology we will have to use as a lever to support them. Until the human population is much lower, the earth cannot support humanity cooking over wood stoves, and the earth will self correct.

The truth is, we all want to live, but none of us need to live. We all want to be comfortable, but none of us need to be.

And on writing as a technology; The only use I have of writing is to use it to end writing.

Alan Durant said:

Hi Sonny, arm tubes?e
Anyway I think that lumping everything together as the "industrial complex" can be a little misleading. I feel what we need to get rid of is Capitalism. Vast amounts of goods etc. are produced for no good reason or at best badly envisaged reasons. These we could happily scrap. However effective production of useful things with peoples control and agreement seems to me to be OK. Of course we may not all agree on what is required and how to produce it. This can only be resolved by a truly democratic system. I mean deciding what is done and not just voting for the liar in the nicest suit.

Alan

[Samana]

I am not proposing a thing.

The delusion of separation is the idea that you are separate from me. That you are separate from nature. That you are separate from the industrialized and industrialized nations. That you are separate from the 10% or the 90%. That you, being separate, can control what is "out there".

Spiritual, yes, maybe a bad word. How about factual.

You talk about control, but what can you really control? Look at your thoughts for one minute and try to control them. Impossible. Try controlling how your heart beats, or when you cry. Yet you think we can control a society? All the facts about over population you checked off, what do you propose to do with them? The fact that capitalism accelerates human greed, what will you do with that? Instead of an individual who decided what we want and need you wish a group to do it. How is the group separate from the individual?

Again, I am not proposing a thing. What needs to happen, will happen. Anarchism will be the result, but it will not be a result planned by politicians or forum members.

Alan Durant said:

I'm not sure I'm exactly following your argument but I'll do my best. I think that Capitalism is the cause of over production because of the need to maximise profits. There are a great many things we needn't produce, the easy example being arms. Your right, if we have control and will still want to use oil we will. But I think and hope that the fact of having real control over what we do will allow us to come to logical conclusions and live life sustainably. I think people can be altruist as well as selfish and we have the ability to be clever and work things out. I'm afraid I need some explanation of what you mean by "the delusion of separation". I'm not sure I do spiritual insights, they seem to mean so many different things to so many different people, perhaps the point.
Overpopulation is most frequently found in relatively "under industrialised" countries. This is usually linked to the need for manual labour on family farms, security for old age, low aspirations, lack of education and lack of access to family planning. Interestingly its in the industrialised countries the population growth is low or even population levels declining. This is often linked to improved provision of health, wealthfare and education. I do however agree with you that the present industrialised society allows such high population levels. Having said this the bulk of the world s population uses very little of its resources. How are you proposing we should lower levels of population?

Alan

Samana said:

Yes, capitalism encourages exploitation, I agree. But industrialization is what is unbalancing the ecosystem. It will do no good to have an Anarchist society with industrialization. Getting rid of profit does not strike to get to the root of the problem. If we still want to use oil we will use oil, Anarchist or Capitalist. Anarchism will slow down industrialization, but our selfishness and delusion of separation will keep it alive.

Anarchism, to me, comes only after a spiritual insight; It is the natural result of a deeper understanding of living.

Also, industrialization is a product and cause of our over population. The more people we want to live longer and have more babies, the more technology we will have to use as a lever to support them. Until the human population is much lower, the earth cannot support humanity cooking over wood stoves, and the earth will self correct.

The truth is, we all want to live, but none of us need to live. We all want to be comfortable, but none of us need to be.

And on writing as a technology; The only use I have of writing is to use it to end writing.

Alan Durant said:

Hi Sonny, arm tubes?e
Anyway I think that lumping everything together as the "industrial complex" can be a little misleading. I feel what we need to get rid of is Capitalism. Vast amounts of goods etc. are produced for no good reason or at best badly envisaged reasons. These we could happily scrap. However effective production of useful things with peoples control and agreement seems to me to be OK. Of course we may not all agree on what is required and how to produce it. This can only be resolved by a truly democratic system. I mean deciding what is done and not just voting for the liar in the nicest suit.

Alan

[Alan Durant]

you do too much separation and not the right ones. What we are talking about managing things and not people; and managing the things democratically, which means not a person or a group doing it.

Eva Durant

[Alan Durant]

We are of course separate from one another while being part of the same whole. I'm not trying to be smart, its just the best way I can think of putting it. It never occurred to me for a second that I was separate from nature, or the industrial society that I live in.
As far as control is concerned I think that in many respects we can control what actions we take, or don't take. By extension groups of individuals can have the same control over their group actions albeit more imperfectly. The most important thing is not to be controlled by others and exploited in the short term interests of a minority.
I don't think that people are by nature greedy. We can be, but what we have to consider is how much greed in its self is link to a system in which worth and status are measured by material possessions.
Perhaps we should be trying to plan. I would rather a peaceful and aware transition to a better society that an apocalypse with death destruction and a loss of the best that we and nature can represent.
Am I miss reading your thoughts?
Alan

Samana said:

I am not proposing a thing.

The delusion of separation is the idea that you are separate from me. That you are separate from nature. That you are separate from the industrialized and industrialized nations. That you are separate from the 10% or the 90%. That you, being separate, can control what is "out there".

Spiritual, yes, maybe a bad word. How about factual.

You talk about control, but what can you really control? Look at your thoughts for one minute and try to control them. Impossible. Try controlling how your heart beats, or when you cry. Yet you think we can control a society? All the facts about over population you checked off, what do you propose to do with them? The fact that capitalism accelerates human greed, what will you do with that? Instead of an individual who decided what we want and need you wish a group to do it. How is the group separate from the individual?

Again, I am not proposing a thing. What needs to happen, will happen. Anarchism will be the result, but it will not be a result planned by politicians or forum members.

Alan Durant said:

I'm not sure I'm exactly following your argument but I'll do my best. I think that Capitalism is the cause of over production because of the need to maximise profits. There are a great many things we needn't produce, the easy example being arms. Your right, if we have control and will still want to use oil we will. But I think and hope that the fact of having real control over what we do will allow us to come to logical conclusions and live life sustainably. I think people can be altruist as well as selfish and we have the ability to be clever and work things out. I'm afraid I need some explanation of what you mean by "the delusion of separation". I'm not sure I do spiritual insights, they seem to mean so many different things to so many different people, perhaps the point.
Overpopulation is most frequently found in relatively "under industrialised" countries. This is usually linked to the need for manual labour on family farms, security for old age, low aspirations, lack of education and lack of access to family planning. Interestingly its in the industrialised countries the population growth is low or even population levels declining. This is often linked to improved provision of health, wealthfare and education. I do however agree with you that the present industrialised society allows such high population levels. Having said this the bulk of the world s population uses very little of its resources. How are you proposing we should lower levels of population?

Alan

Samana said:

Yes, capitalism encourages exploitation, I agree. But industrialization is what is unbalancing the ecosystem. It will do no good to have an Anarchist society with industrialization. Getting rid of profit does not strike to get to the root of the problem. If we still want to use oil we will use oil, Anarchist or Capitalist. Anarchism will slow down industrialization, but our selfishness and delusion of separation will keep it alive.

Anarchism, to me, comes only after a spiritual insight; It is the natural result of a deeper understanding of living.

Also, industrialization is a product and cause of our over population. The more people we want to live longer and have more babies, the more technology we will have to use as a lever to support them. Until the human population is much lower, the earth cannot support humanity cooking over wood stoves, and the earth will self correct.

The truth is, we all want to live, but none of us need to live. We all want to be comfortable, but none of us need to be.

And on writing as a technology; The only use I have of writing is to use it to end writing.

Alan Durant said:

Hi Sonny, arm tubes?e
Anyway I think that lumping everything together as the "industrial complex" can be a little misleading. I feel what we need to get rid of is Capitalism. Vast amounts of goods etc. are produced for no good reason or at best badly envisaged reasons. These we could happily scrap. However effective production of useful things with peoples control and agreement seems to me to be OK. Of course we may not all agree on what is required and how to produce it. This can only be resolved by a truly democratic system. I mean deciding what is done and not just voting for the liar in the nicest suit.

Alan

[Samana]

We are separate from each other, but that separation is an illusion, a convention.

There is no better society or worse society, that is an illusion, a concept.

I do not wish for an Apocalypse, nor a peaceful transition. If either event happens, I will be at peace.

We can control our actions, but we have no idea of the outcome, so the less action the better.

Only when you sit quietly, and watch your thoughts, and find out where they arise, will you be able to accurately read my thoughts.

Alan Durant said:

We are of course separate from one another while being part of the same whole. I'm not trying to be smart, its just the best way I can think of putting it. It never occurred to me for a second that I was separate from nature, or the industrial society that I live in.
As far as control is concerned I think that in many respects we can control what actions we take, or don't take. By extension groups of individuals can have the same control over their group actions albeit more imperfectly. The most important thing is not to be controlled by others and exploited in the short term interests of a minority.
I don't think that people are by nature greedy. We can be, but what we have to consider is how much greed in its self is link to a system in which worth and status are measured by material possessions.
Perhaps we should be trying to plan. I would rather a peaceful and aware transition to a better society that an apocalypse with death destruction and a loss of the best that we and nature can represent.
Am I miss reading your thoughts?
Alan