Herbert Marcuse. — Merkwurdichliebe

Marcuse was into sustainability? Cool. Still not seeing the point.

Marcuse was into sustainability? Cool. Still not seeing the point. — Mikie

Not only was marcuse into it, he laid out the central theory of sustainability that has been increasingly put into practice within many domains of society in our time. And my only point was to find out who you factored as key pioneers on the notion of sustainability.

But since you insist on some deeper point, I will oblige. It would seem to me, that if a person were to be unaware of Marcuse's contribution to the core ideas of "sustainability", yet that same person had bought in wholesale to the popular narrative of the climate crisis and its solutions, it would be extremely reasonable to assume that same person has been brainwashed by popular media. Such a person might even seek out and consume studies and statistics that are strategically dispersed by the perpetrators of the official narrative in order to reinforce the narrative in his closed mind. And that would mean that the programming has taken hold.

The question I am left asking is: why would the perpetrators of the official narrative conveniently fail to ever mention Herbert Markuse, and pretend like the popular notions of sustainability are relatively new and original? Something smells very fishy.

In the US, it's George Vanderbilt. He started the world's first forestry school intended to teach loggers how to harvest wood sustainably. But he brought some guy from Germany over to teach. I guess it must have started there originally. — frank

I looked him up. He was before the time of Marcuse. Marcuse had accute ideas on sustainability. Vanderbilt seems to be more about classic environmental protection.

The main difference, beyond their respective occupations, is that Vanderbilt was on a personal quest and was not trying to impose his ethic on all society. Whereas markuse was prescribing his "new sensibilities" as a society wide solution to what he imagined (and greatly exagerated) to be an environmental crisis.

You fail. But A+ for effort :joke:

Not only was marcuse into it, he laid out the central theory of sustainability that has been increasingly put into practice within many domains of society in our time. — Merkwurdichliebe

Central theory of sustainability? What are you referring to? I’ve read Marcuse— I guess I missed this. But in any case, seems far fetched.

Who cares?

if a person were to be unaware of Marcuse's contribution to the core ideas of "sustainability" — Merkwurdichliebe

What core ideas are you referring to exactly?

same person had bought in wholesale to the popular narrative of the climate crisis and its solutions, — Merkwurdichliebe

Such as?

brainwashed by popular media — Merkwurdichliebe

Not popular media — science.

why would the perpetrators of the official narrative conveniently fail to ever mention Herbert Markuse, and pretend like the popular notions of sustainability are relatively new and original? Something smells very fishy. — Merkwurdichliebe

First, it’s arguable that Marcuse played as big a role in the environmental movement or the idea of sustainability that you seem to be latching yourself to.

Second, if he has indeed played a large role — who cares? What does it have to do with the facts of climate science?

There are plenty of solutions. We’ve barely scratched the surface of that discussion on this thread.

There are plenty of solutions. We’ve barely scratched the surface of that discussion on this thread. — Mikie

With that i can absolutely agree. Let's try. I'm willing to get crazy with it.

Central theory of sustainability? What are you referring to? I’ve read Marcuse— I guess I missed this. But in any case, seems far fetched. — Mikie

What core ideas are you referring to exactly? — Mikie

Not as far fetched as you think. Here are some quotes:

"The destruction of nature is not an accidental by-product of the capitalist mode of production; it is essential to its functioning. The capitalist economy is based on the endless accumulation of capital, and this requires the endless exploitation of both human and natural resources. The more nature is exploited, the more it is destroyed." (From Ecology and Revolution, 1970)

"The environmental crisis is linked to other forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, and classism. For example, the disproportionate impact of environmental pollution on poor and minority communities is a form of environmental racism." (From Ecology and Revolution, 1970)

"A sustainable society is one that is based on non-violence and solidarity. This means that it would be a society that respects the rights of all beings, human and non-human, and that works to create a just and equitable world." (From Ecology and Revolution, 1970)

"We need to develop a new sensibility, one that is more in tune with nature and less materialistic. This means that we need to learn to appreciate the beauty of nature and to value it for its own sake, not just for its usefulness to us." (From One-Dimensional Man, 1964)

"The struggle for a sustainable society is a political struggle, a struggle against the dominant ideology of consumerism and the endless accumulation of capital. It is a struggle for a new way of life, a way of life that is based on non-violence, solidarity, and respect for nature." (From Ecology and Revolution, 1970)

I challenge you to explain to @Agree-to-Disagree and @ChatteringMonkey and @frank, how these quotes don't fit in perfectly ( and rather ironically) with the official climate crisis narrative. I'm certain that you are philosophical enough to provide one example.

Not popular media — science. — Mikie

Did you hear about the science, or do it yourself? Please tell me you did it yourself :pray:

First, it’s arguable that Marcuse played as big a role in the environmental movement or the idea of sustainability that you seem to be latching yourself to.

Second, if he has indeed played a large role — who cares? What does it have to do with the facts of climate science? — Mikie

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but fortunately, and unlike @frank, I truly possess the payload to singlehand destroy, not only the environment, but the entire universe.

It means that there is a great possibility that the official narrative concerning the climate crisis is totally overblown, as with Marcuse. And it also means that it is likely that there is an agenda with inflated statistics, which very few people benefit from, that pushes the official narrative on the rabble and unsuspecting suckers.

I challenge you to explain to Agree-to-Disagree and @ChatteringMonkey and @frank, how these quotes don't fit in perfectly ( and rather ironically) with the official climate crisis narrative. I'm certain that you are philosophical enough to provide one example. — Merkwurdichliebe

What “official climate crisis narrative”? The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc. — and could lead to tipping points.

It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.

That being said— Marcuse is right. But he wasn’t a climate scientist and wasn’t presenting evidence of global warming or offering concrete solutions. I personally agree we should be less consumeristic and move away from capitalism — particularly neoliberalism— but so what? There’s reasonable arguments, from Jeremy Grantham for example, about using the better parts of “capitalism” (eg venture capital) to encourage transition.

I’m still not really seeing the point. Why is Marcuse “central” to anything in the environmental movement — especially climate change? Rachel Carson, Bill Mckibben, James Hanson, Syukuro Manabe— all far more relevant in this respect.

Unless one is trying to link climate science to “Marxism” somehow. Which is silly.

Did you hear about the science, or do it yourself. Please tell me you did it yourself :pray: — Merkwurdichliebe

Done what myself? Read a graph?

Yes, I talk to climate scientists and read published articles on climate change. I have some background in it— but I’m not involved in gathering ice core samples if that’s what you mean.

It means that there is a great possibility that the official narrative concerning the climate crisis is totally overblown, as with Marcuse. — Merkwurdichliebe

What “official narrative,” exactly? You keep mentioning this.

Marcuse didn’t write about climate change. Nor was anything you quoted from him “overblown.” Seems like common sense. But ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.

But I see where this is going.

True, it could all be a communist conspiracy. That’s a fairly common variant of climate denial. It’s on par with creationists being correct about Noah’s flood, but it’s possible. If you want to throw in with that idea, your welcome.

Not popular media — science. — Mikie

I know a cultic priest who would be atwitter for access to your science.

The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc. — and could lead to tipping points.

It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence. — Mikie

That's the narrative im fishing for

But he wasn’t a climate scientist and wasn’t presenting evidence of global warming or offering concrete solutions. — Mikie

Correct. He was a genius, presenting a massive narrative that would place him in the ranking of world historical figures.

I personally agree we should be less consumeristic and move away from capitalism — particularly neoliberalism— but so what? There’s reasonable arguments, from Jeremy Grantham for example, about using the better parts of “capitalism” (eg venture capital) to encourage transition. — Mikie

Sounds reasonable at face value. Let's put that in the bin of relevance

Marcuse didn’t write about climate change. Nor was anything you quoted from him “overblown.” Seems like coming sense. But ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. — Mikie

Common sense is easy to instill into the "truly uncritical" mind.

Marcuse didn’t write about climate change. Nor was anything you quoted from him “overblown.” Seems like coming sense. But ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. — Mikie

Typical submittal tactic.

True, it could all be a communist conspiracy. That’s a fairly common variant of climate denial. It’s on par with creationists being correct about Noah’s flood, but it’s possible. If you want to throw in with that idea, your welcome. — Mikie

Done!

I know a cultic priest who would be atwitter for access to your science. — Merkwurdichliebe

What?

It’s not “my” science. The evidence is there for all to see. Gotta try hard not to understand it, in fact.

The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc. — and could lead to tipping points.

It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.
— Mikie

That's the narrative im fishing for — Merkwurdichliebe

It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.

I suppose evolution, electromagnetism, and gravity can be described as “narratives” too, eh?



Cool. Go do more “critical thinking” with Alex Jones and Ken Hamm.

And I don’t need 10 replies to one post. This isn’t Twitter.

Marcuse didn’t write about climate change. Nor was anything you quoted from him “overblown.” Seems like coming sense. But ultimately irrelevant to this — Mikie

Do you realize that the science just happened, coincidentally to confirm an egregious amount of Marcuse's speculations. If he naturslly intuited this incontrovertible fact from pure anecdotal study and observation, it would make him greater than Jesus and Mao having generous butt sex

Always fun to watch people degenerate into spewing nonsense with even the slightest questioning. Oh well.

It’s not “my” science. The evidence is there for all to see. Gotta try hard not to understand it, in fact. — Mikie

You are truly bought and sold

Always fun to watch people degenerate into spewing nonsense with even the slightest questioning. Oh well. — Mikie

:party: its a shutout, you have not made one point (not even the one i was certsin of). And now you retreat even farther back with the old:

But ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. — Mikie

What discussion, the one on climate change? Well moderated! You are not gaining any support with your expert argument.

It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.

I suppose evolution, electromagnetism, and gravity can be described as “narratives” too, eh? — Mikie

Please, provide us all the electromagnetic explanation of climate change, and we will believe everything you say.

Do you realize that the science just happened, coincidentally to confirm an egregious amount of Marcuse's speculations. — Merkwurdichliebe

Cool. Go do more “critical thinking” — Mikie

Im thinking more "critical theory"

Ok let's get back to philosophy...

What is your core criticism countering my claim that Marcuse's philosophy underlies the official climate crisis narrative?

@frank What do you think?

What is your core criticism countering my claim that Marcuse's philosophy underlies the official climate crisis narrative? — Merkwurdichliebe

The end-of-the-world narrative is an Indo-European motif. The climate crisis is Armageddon. Capitalism is the Antichrist. I'm talking about the emotional form of it, not the scientific part.

The US and Russia have this oddity in common: particularly potent forms of the Armageddon myth were social drivers in each culture. The idea of global nuclear war emerged from a conflict between entities who were both already steeped in dreams of the end of the world.

That doesn't mean the end isn't really near. In fact the world is ending all the time. And that's what it's really about: time.

Any good textbook on global warming will have a section on the philosophical challenge of climate change: that this problem will always be with us as long as coal is around to burn. As a species, we have no experience addressing a problem that extends beyond about a hundred years. This problem extends for thousands upon thousands. The real problem is time.

Let's just assume there's competing narratives. How do you tell which one to subscribe to? Assuming it's not false reporting, a majority of scientists state there's a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis looming or already there. Obviously, from a purely logical standpoint I can't claim "the climate crisis is happening because almost all scientists say so" but heuristically that's how we tend to have to operate. And to an important extent the IPCC reports do try to make the science understandable to laymen, if you've read it.

So I kind of miss what exactly is the relevance of pointing out that it's a narrative to assume the science in favour of the global warming hypothese is right or a "fact"? Technically those claims go to far but for the purposes of discussion I've found alternative narratives easy to disprove. The bigger problem is the moral apathy and cynicism of some posters - which I feel regulary but choose to ignore because I owe that to future generations. Even if we can't stop it, mitigating it will go a long way.

Other than that, good quotes from Marcuse!

Any good textbook on global warming will have a section on the philosophical challenge of climate change: that this problem will always be with us as long as coal is around to burn. As a species, we have no experience addressing a problem that extends beyond about a hundred years. This problem extends for thousands upon thousands. The real problem is time. — frank

The real problem is people like you insisting the problem is too big, too difficult, too whatever reason you can dream up to do fuck all. It's just moral weakness.

I’m not at all certain. I make the choice not to dwell on the idea that we’re probably screwed. It’s useless and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. — Mikie

You make a choice to stick your head in the ground?

It obviously does matter what the likelyhood of succeeding is. Suppose we have a very small chance of succeeding to stay below a certain limit of climate change, than I think it would make sense to allocate a lot more money to resilience measures.

I feel like you are overselling all these psychological effects. That is probably our main point of disagreement. I think it's better to look at our situation as it is, and figure out what to do from there. A failure to aknowledge that is far more dangerous than anything like a self-fulfilling profecy it seems to me.

The real problem is that we have a real problem.

You make a choice to stick your head in the ground? — ChatteringMonkey

How you got this from what I said is bizarre.

I think it's better to look at our situation as it is, and figure out what to do from there. — ChatteringMonkey

No kidding. That’s what I have and will continue to do. What I won’t do is resign myself to doing nothing because it’s a big, difficult problem.

What I won’t do is resign myself to doing nothing because it’s a big, difficult problem. — Mikie

How you got this from what I said is bizarre.

I guess we are both kind of arguing a bit of a strawman version of eachothers position then?

The real problem is people like you insisting the problem is too big, too difficult, too whatever reason you can dream up to do fuck all. It's just moral weakness. — Benkei

Actually, I brought up fusion, a global government, a new global religion, and other ideas. What did you contribute other than being a gnat in my face?

As I said, you just come up with shit so you feel good about yourself doing fuck all. It's the same why oil companies are so keen on wanting carbon capture work but of course have governments pay for it. That way they don't have to stop what they're doing. You want a magic bullet (fusion) so you don't have to do shit, a government to do shit for you, a religion to convince others to do what you won't do out of free will (I guess; I haven't exactly read the hair-brained idea of convincing 8 billion people to change religion but hey, very unhelpful bullshit as usual) and every other thing you mention as a reason not to do anything.

The technology is already there, the awareness is there but hey, let's just keep doing what we're doing. What I contribute is less than the global average and I set aside about 3% of my income each year to finance further reductions. Isolate your home maybe get some solar panels, ompartimentalise your heating system so you only warm rooms you're using, use a bike to get around, consume less, buy second hand, torch all advertisement. You'll save money, get healthier and be happier. It's not new or ground-breaking. In fact, it's all very easy unless you're poor. That's really the only excuse to do nothing.

You want a magic bullet (fusion) so you don't have to do shit, a government to do shit for you, a religion to convince others to do what you won't do out of free will — Benkei

I've long believed fission and fusion will be a significant part of addressing climate change. The challenge today is that coal is cheapest way to beef up a power grid, which is why China is building two coal driven power plants per week this year.

You can force nuclear power with laws, as is happening in the US. A fission plant is being built near me, actually. But laws come and go. Supply and demand will have a bigger impact over time. Fusion would reduce the demand for coal, natural gas, and petroleum without the environmental impact fission has.

What I contribute is less than the global average and I set aside about 3% of my income each year to finance further reductions. Isolate your home maybe get some solar panels, ompartimentalise your heating system so you only warm rooms you're using, use a bike to get around, consume less, buy second hand, torch all advertisement. You'll save money, get healthier and be happier. It's not new or ground-breaking. In fact, it's all very easy unless you're poor. That's really the only excuse to do nothing. — Benkei

That's great. I also live a low consumption life. One of the systemic problems people overlook is the way we use plastic. Organisms that eat plastic have evolved. That means going forward, that plastic waste will contribute to greenhouse gases. So what's the alternative? I mainly think about that with regard to medical equipment which is pervasively made of disposable plastic for infection control reasons. We could transition back to glass, but guess what power source drives most glass production? Natural gas.

So solar panels are a great idea. They're subsidized by my state. But you can't make glass with a solar panel. Globally, we should be working to transition to fission and fusion. That would actually do something about the problem.