[...being rants and ravings cut and pasted from somewhere or other...]
21 December 2005
Abortion - a vegan response.
Whose rights matter?
16 November 2005
death of the middle classes
But the death of the middle class charade will shortly be announced: the paltry vestiges of their ill-gotten gains, their dreary value-system will be wrecked in the natural catastrophe they have orchestrated. I find it unbelievable that all but the very cynical of their number (politicians mainly) still really believe in consumer society and the politics of choice and university education a decent pension and all the rest of it, as a long term proposition. If ever failure to adapt to a change in environment was a harbinger of extinction this is it...the intrinsic nature of the middle class is directly, and utterly, undermined by ecological crisis. If you remove the foundations the whole house collapses, obviously.
If their crimes weren't so horrendous it would be tragic, or at least ironic. Knowledge that knows nothing, just accumulates in the absence of any moral core. Niceness constructed upon ruthless violence against the 'othered'.
There can be no excuse for ignorance or complacency when you are teetering at the end of it all.
13 November 2005
Remembrance...
31 October 2005
the unicorn #2
30 October 2005
The Unicorn #1
It occurred to me that IM might be manipulating the readers preconceived expectation of a novel's structure quite as much as she organises her characters actions and narrative. By this I mean that we (the characters and the readers) all bring preconceptions to our experience of the novel: a kind of mental map which gives shape to, and somehow, encloses in formality what we are experiencing, based on our 'knowledge' of religion, psychoanalysis or whatever. I'm sure IM disorientates us deliberately so that we question and understand better our own received wisdom. Notably the Unicorn herself has no identifiable moral or analytical core, she just is, and this is extremely attractive to the other characters. An annoying intellectual puzzle with no possible answer.
I was thinking about all this while walking on Farnhill Moor this morning. Unlike everywhere else round here it's a bit of hillside which is unenclosed and in a fairly natural state. There were so many things to see: birds, insects, trees, bracken, toadstools etc. etc. all just busy being, with or without us to see them and categorise our experience of them. From the top you can look and see all the hills around which have been walled off and the land enclosed. All very orderly, attractive and almost completely sterile. Perhaps we're just apes who have to organise things?
21 September 2005
Think holistically
08 September 2005
Capitalism
31 August 2005
What's the purpose of life?
I just think 'purpose' is a bit human-centred, maybe egocentric, to ring true...isn't transcending the needs of the self a normal spiritual aspiration? For me purpose suggests design which suggests a creator. If there is no creator there can be no design and no purpose.
It seems to me human experience is not dissimilar to running around erratically in a dark forest. If it is comforting to categorise the bunch of trees as 'a forest' then that's fine. But it negates your affinity with the trees and certainly won't help you find your way out...
17 August 2005
Pet subject
04 August 2005
Making judgements
17 July 2005
Can we justify having more children?
Only vegans can attain such a self-contained, environmentally respectful means of subsistence in which a proportionate number of children is a cause of celebration rather than uneasy guilt. We can finally unlink human activity and degradation of the earth. It hardly prejudices other species at all, indeed many vegan-organic methods cause them to flourish. I recognise that the widespread adoption of small scale vegan-organic production is a distant prospect, but may become more popular when the oil-based economy finally implodes.
I wouldn't want to replace God with nature. I think any analysis which does this mistakenly confers earth/nature with a vengeful, godlike quality. Nature just is, it doesn't decide anything. I think humans often put themselves in one place analytically and nature somewhere else: either above or below them. Surely the answer is we ARE nature. The boundary of our skin is arbitrary and cultural (and, anyway, permeable). So if we abuse nature, we degrade ourselves - a direct, non-mystical union.
If we carry on living how we live, burning resources like there's no tomorrow, we're sunk. Any utopian argument based upon everyone living their 'modern lifestyles' will inevitably reach the same conclusion.
The form of vegan living I'm promoting does not require an ever-increasing transport network and foreign travel. If a large family can mostly feed itself from a piece of land about the same size as a tennis court, and in doing so re-use most of its 'waste', the present problems of environmental degradation largely disappear. I accept that housing is an issue, although I suspect a lesser one if the existing housing stock was distributed fairly, and if ecologically friendly design becomes mandatory.
To those who say this is utopian, I simply ask how does conventional living stack up without cheap fossil fuels? Quite simply, it doesn't. Everything we now take as normal will be swept away, probably within our lifetimes. It's already happening. That is the reality we have to address and a reduction in the number of births is a distraction from the main issues. I still think vegans are among the best placed to confer an holistic outlook onto their children. To attempt to deny them the opportunity is tantamount to rolling over in front of the urban industrial machine. Vegan family values may seem puny in the face of conventional ideas of 'freedom', but truth is surely always worth cultivating.
27 June 2005
Vegan lions: a response
However, I think when you start considering policies such as attempting to convert carniverous species to veganism you've adopted the role of their steward which I find arrogant and inevitably prone to disaster: either the animal would eat you or, if by some chance you were successful, the other species which benefit from their activity (e.g. carrion) would suffer.
All human notions of material progress - and many ones of moral progress - are self-defeating because they inevitably undermine the ecological foundations upon which we all stand. I think we know enough about ecosystems now to understand the proper limits of our interventions with other species. This should be limited to reversing some of the stupid stuff we've done previously. Any notions of progress or evolution, however well meant, are contrary to this understanding.
19 June 2005
Forget politics - let's change the world
All environmentalists are exasperated by the intransigence of government and corporations when faced with the demands of ecological crisis. Why can’t they act, even in their own interests? Perhaps we are failing to recognise that that such institutions, as products of industrial society, are intrinsically deleterious to Nature, hence their present paralysis. They cannot be sufficiently reformed without transforming them completely.
Understandably, this has encouraged a view that we must take control of the situation. Unlike socialists, we cannot attempt to coral the working class to do our dirty work for us (although I suspect quite a few die-hard socialists have mistaken our radical agenda for their own) so we have entered into the fray of national, adversarial politics. The problem is: environmentalism is, by it’s nature, neither adversarial, national and, I will suggest, political in any conventional sense. I feel the utopian ideological misapprehensions that suggest parliamentary democracy is capable of delivering change, or that other political parties might be amenable to our influence, has lead us into a political cul de sac and has allowed green thinking to become marginal rather than fundamental. Nature has become ‘the environment’ (something out there, remote) and her crisis mere ‘green issues’. Our present course runs the risk of merely confusing, exhausting and demoralising our core support. It may be unpalatable, but I have to suggest to you that green politics isn’t working.
To revive it, I believe we must unravel our present philosophical and ideological contradictions. Not to be clever or purist but to ensure that our personal/natural resources are used with maximum efficiency. That means not using party politics as a substitute for real change. We must engage with people’s real selves not their political prejudices. As I’ve already indicated, conventional politics thrives upon finding someone to blame. Or identifying someone, anyone, to be the agency of social change. Except oneself. The real news is that the agency of change from our environmental perspective is, unavoidably, oneself!
Let’s set aside the fact that engaging in parliamentary democracy may not just be ineffective but profoundly retrograde environmentally. What case can be made for personal change as the agency of meaningful social change, or to paraphrase Gandhi, being the change you wish to see in society? I think we must start by recognising that there can be no meaningful distinction between the individual and nature. Conventional conceptual barriers like our skin, or the walls of our homes are fine if you want to, say, bury your waste ‘out there’ and forget about it, but are dissolved by ecological understanding. This explains why your mental and physical health are not contingent upon the environment, they are the environment.
These observations give some idea of how much traction exists between you and the environment. The way you conduct your life is, therefore, not only important, but hugely transformative. For example (and I realise these are contentious examples) if every Green Party member gave up their car(s), air travel and became vegan tomorrow I would suggest that the net environmental benefit would, overnight, outweigh everything achieved by the Green Party to date. Moreover, our arguments for real progress would be hugely more convincing if we were radically walking the walk as well as talking the talk. We could develop a transformative community which demonstrated the enormous personal and social benefits of living as part of nature: it is no coincidence that industrial society has gone to great lengths to disrupt the simple but potent synergy between human beings and nature. I suspect we all know what we need to do – this is the time to act. Politics should be the cart not the horse.
It has become apparent to me that the necessary changes to people’s lives in order to salvage our future on this planet could never be imposed from above without creating a monstrous, Stalinist regime. This would obviously be completely self-defeating. If we can reveal the future through our lives today, there is still the prospect of our own freedom and meaningful social transformation.