Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
More biofuel for aëroplanes means less rainforest
#1
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...ampaigners

Basically the aviation industry has promised "carbon neutral growth" (because with civilisation, growth is the only option), and they're gonna do this through biofuels. This means millions of tonnes of that shit, which is way more than we're currently producing. This, in turn, means vegetable oil, which means farming, which means deforestation. It just keeps coming back to farming, doesn't it.
Reply
#2
I would say that farming was eroding social life a (very) long time before industrialism made its appearance. Farming leads to capital. I am not wont to refer to farming as if it were the one ring (indeed, Tolkien himself, like you, would be more likely to pinpoint industrialism as the problem), but it seems to me that industrialism is simply a convenient way of exacerbating this process. To put it differently, if we went back in time to the "the giant misstep" (the agricultural revolution), could we have done agriculture differently? I would say that it seems unlikely, for this is the domain of growth (pun unintended, but welcome).

Still, a more important and interesting question would be whether we could do farming today. I think it is important to avoid the equivocation of agriculture and permaculture. I read in another thread that you are interested in arcology, and I'm interested in eco-villages. Though I do not claim the prescience to observe whether eco-villages with horticulture, permaculture, and arcology, are going to be a silver bullet—in fact, I suspect they rather won't be—they seem to be a massive improvement over the industrial machine. So don't get me wrong—I may view industrialism as a symptom of a more radical disease, however, in daily life, the symptoms can be worse than the disease.

We should likely limit this thread to biofuel, but a broader discussion on both industrialism and farming, and eco-villages/arcology/permaculture could be illuminating, so feel free to open threads on that!
Reply
#3
Definitely. But will they? This is Hume's power paradox (dubbed a paradox by Noam Chomsky) all over again. Étienne de La Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude talks about it in detail, and I've been working a bit on an essay that traces this sadomasochism back to Descartes, and, further, to Plato (via Augustin). Why is it that The Earthwrecker is allowed free rein? I suspect a critique rooted in alienation is underrated in these post-everything days. To quote a song I like, "apathy kills sympathy, and it scares me."

Mayhaps are we forced to come to terms with the fact that I) the proletariat isn't a revolutionary class. Regardless, we certainly have to come to terms with the fact that II) we don't have time to wait for some nebulous (and, if history does repeat, nefarious) proletarian revolution.

So what then? How do we effect change? We could go the yuppie route. Or perhaps we could go the political party route. Neither seems palatable. We could just wait for the collapse, not stirring a finger except to say "I told you so". That's not very serious. But in the end, it might be the only thing that's within our power.

What are your suggestions?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)