Environmental philosophy?

That's why technofascism is superior. Fuck nature, humanity shall rule through technology.

For all those redpillers filthyfing my thread, check out "The Green and the Brown: A History of Conservation in Nazi Germany".
Tell me more, what does it mean. Sounds like Nick Land.

I've recently started Linkola's Can Life Prevail?

It's extremely polemic and he has some very strong opinions, he wants to control population growth, ban immigration, sustainability is just a thing capitalists do to feel better but it doesn't help etc.

I have a feeling he likes to take truth rather loosely (for example, he just posits that Finns were most healthy during WW2, since then capitalism wasn't so predominant), and a lot of it is 'everything was better when I was young!', but it's still interesting in some places.

It's also the only book of his that I could find as an epub online.

Sounds interesting user, will check it out.

>Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

I know it is a game, but it would still be interesting to see a thoughtful anti-environmental essay or book. But I doubt that thoughtful ones exist, or at least not ones erudite about ecosystems and evolution.

Garbage essay, his argument is almost completely semantic. Will changing the language we use to talk about conservation change how we practice it? Probably, but only very slowly, and the move towards a kind of corporate jargon ("I endorse the black rhino, I promote the everglades") is not one that should be welcomed, given the increasing privitazation of even those natural resources which are supposed to be for public use (see: the Subaru sponsorship of the American National Park system).

That said, we need to rethink our relationship to "nature," and I agree that the first step in doing so is seeing ourselves as participants rather than observers. But, if we do view ourselves as participating in nature, we must also take responsibility for our actions -- hand-waving human-caused climate change as only natural is fucking stupid, and I would argue that our goods, produced on a massive scale using complicated tools and global organization, are in fact of a different "kind" than the goods of beavers, bees, etc. A common argument runs like this: a wolf does not feel morally culpable for killing a deer, so why should we for [insert environmentally destructive practice here]? Wolves, as far as I know, cannot consider the far-reaching consequences of their actions. We can, or at least we can attempt to. Furthermore, wolves do not produce a surplus which is then thrown out, do not create harmful waste, do not systematically eradicate other species.

Anyway, 3/10 would not read again. Was expecting something more along the lines of "sustainable goods a luxury which only the privileged can afford."

>do not systematically eradicate other species.
Note not an argument: but they do systematically eradicate other wolf packs.
If you know some gud environmental philosophy let me now by the way.

>If you know some gud environmental philosophy let me now by the way.
Walden's superb, if you haven't read it I'd recommend.

Nice digits.

...

"Environmentalism" has always been reactionary to the core and in no way progressive.
With an unbridled development of the productive forces detached from the formal control of profitability you could have fusion energy in a couple of years and revolutions in all spheres of resource production and science.
By regulating investment and production decisions around private capitalist profitability criterion you can only discount the future... that's why when any type of revolution in production is proposed [say completely reengineering the global energy grid] you will get the typical response: that's nice but non the less the necessary debt to finance that will be a burden on future generations, it's better we just let market forces destroy the future sustainability of humanity itself.
Neo-malthusianism cannot launch the revolution that's necessary to change the underlying mental and physical infrastructure that's destroying the future of the plant.

Language IS a pretty big deal, the way you think is already predetermined by your language to an extent:

>all observers are not led by the same evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated.
-- Benjamin Lee Whorf

It's not a coincidence that the development of modern English coincided with the rise of capitalism and vulgar bourgeois empiricism in England. Today in the developed capitalist world the prevailing usages of exposition include intellectually diseased habits of speech and writing and because of this the capacity of language to communicate important and profound conceptions has been undermined by the acceptance of the pathological norms of rhetoric that are accommodations to the empiricists philosophical world-outlook. This is why you may find it so hard to cognize in a properly dialectical fashion.

>With an unbridled development of the productive forces detached from the formal control of profitability you could have fusion energy in a couple of years

lmao

All the underlying fundamentals are there all you need to do is direct R&D resources. Long term investments that give you a low rate of return are next to impossible to get properly financed when all everyone is interested in is short term capital-gains... instead of directing all profit back into reinvestment you have to maintain a large layer of useless rentier scum.

Fusion energy is fully feasible just not profitable by current capitalist profit metrics.

If the rhetorical and intellectual climate was the same as today back in the 60s trying to say you could go to the moon would just get you a response like "lmao".

Good contributions user thanks. My association with environmentalism is indeed that it is very, sometimes extremely, reactionary.

One thing I do not understand how environmentalists, who sometimes care more about nature as humans, are so anti-nuclear. Chernobyl showed that radioactivity is more a problem to humans than animals.

It would make more sense to me if it were humanists not environmentalists who are anti-nuclear more.

Do you have any idea how much government money goes into fusion R&D? You're completely delusional about its feasibility. We're nowhere near the "underlying fundamentals".

Do you know how much profit energy industries like oil and natural gas generate each year and how it's either distributed in the form of dividends to investors or invested into various forms of propaganda to maintain its own profitability or mere over-head expenses? The funds going towards fusion R&D from governments is absolutely noting in the grand scale of the energy sector and there are private interests who profit from keeping it like that. You direct your full resources if you want to actually make something happen, its fundamentals are totally feasible on paper today intellect and resources are just being misdirected to maintain the fictitious paper values invested in already existing fixed-capital from the devastating devaluation and financial collapse which would follow such a revolution in the mode of production.

I hate you alt right fags, you're so fucking stupid and you can't even see it.

Though I feel like you specifically are some butthurt /leftypol/-poster trying to defame /pol/ by being as obnoxious and tonedeaf as possible
This is a good piece, interesting to see this sentiment in mainstream circles

He's completely right though, people may live longer now (and thus be "healthier") but if you read closely you would realize that he in every way values QUALITY of life, both in humans and animals over length of life.