https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZkFj9uPKXo

Ultimately the current system of brutalizing others both human and non human is going to destroy the brutalizer. What is causing this inability to come to terms with the fact that modern society is most effective at repackaging the natural world into a consumer good and degrading the overall quality of it day after day after day?

Far too many aspects of our society are f***ed up for anyone to even bother trying to change anything. IMHO, humanity is on a one way path to self-destruction. If we're lucky, we won't go entirely extinct as a species, amd will be able to build a new more "down to earth/archaic" society once the current one is long forgotten.

I think there is a flaw in the way that information is communicated from generation to generation, parent to child, group to individual etc.

Which, like the discoveries made by Ed Lorenz in the 60s and 70s regarding weather patterns follows a conceptually familiar idea of 'strange attractors'.
But Instead of visually beautiful abstract models that emerge from simple initial conditions, the application of this idea is 'idea' itself.

From simple, arguably naive ideas birthed in the recent or distant past, emerge crystallised systems that are dependent upon a mutual exchange of implicit understanding that, once communicated and agreed upon have very little pliability but incredible amounts of persuasion. Keeping the roots of ideas deep in the past.

This is changing though, thanks to the continual evolution without disruption, of modern forms of communication. The ideas are becoming less set-in-stone, more hotly disputed, fluid and a tendency to disregard tradition: Becoming the new socially acceptable norm, opening up the field for new 'strange attractors' to inevitably crystallise.

How? You might ask, do those verbose few sentences apply to anthropocentrism?
Because it is only an idea, an impermanent an idea as the frailty of the human form.
Such a frail creature, one that creates entire schools of thought to understand the idea of 'not being'.
Vast, crystalline structures over centuries attempting to comprehend the afterlife.
When the answer to life might be just:

'To live'

Keep it going, irregardless of the individual.
Keep it going, just incase this is all that there is.
Keep it going, for no sake but life itself.

Arguing over whether or not we are the cause is like blowing hot air on a fire burning out of control.
The real anthropocentrism is the arrogance to assume there is a fire at all, given our tiny little, frail and temporal perspective.

But hey, that's just an idea.

I used to have a similar view, until I began having these experiences that this community is devoted to. the more experiences I've had, the more I feel that, the key to changing things is these experiences of nature. That is, society as a whole will change only when enough individuals have changed. Aya and dmt especialy change people, they see the world in a completely new way. So I think that the more humans experience nature in this way, the faster, the better. Humans, especially in the west, have to reconnect to the earth in one way or another and have mystical experiences.

I agree entirely. I hope that the current green trend persists and expands. However, I'm skeptical that it will cause a change in our western society's destructive ways.

I feel like big changes are possible with the help of ayahuasca. I'm sure there's already people from corporate board rooms going to Peru. Once enough key players from corperations and govt have drank aya, they'll spread the idea, and so forth and so on. These are the people who must be reached. Perhaps I'm too positive, but I think aya has massive potential to reach humans.

Awesome video! I have thought about this before but wasn't aware that there was an actual term for it.

I don't think it matters whether or not we believe humans are the most superior species on the planet or not. While it may be important to analyze how these beliefs exist at the core of many of our main functioning ideologies, it is pretty clear that humans have altered this planet more than any other species that has ever existed here. We have invented more technology and pursued travel into outer space, both physically and mentally. But capitalism is naturally resource-depriving and will bring our current systems to a halt eventually.

Now I personally adore capitalism for what it has given me. I love being able to work harder to buy nicer and nicer things and help more and more people (by distributing money the way I see fit). I love living in a country where I have enough agency to explore any philosophy I desire. And even though drugs are illegal here, I have had no problem using them throughout the years to expand my mind, as I do it safely, rationally, and in the safety of my own home.

With that said, capitalism (and even my lifestyle) involves the use and waste of resources that may never be replenished. I drive everyday. I use a phone and laptop made of rare earth metals and conflict materials. As much as I avoid it I eat nonorganic food. I wear nonorganic clothing and use nonorganic towels and walk on nonorganic wooden floors. I waste a lot of freshwater to take my showers. And yet I am one of the more vigilant ones, as well as a minimalist!

I do appreciate sustainable business, and I have previously envisioned a world that is completely sustainable. I have theorized that businesses will be forced toward complete sustainability eventually because of the costs of raw materials. But I think it is much more likely that we will burn our planet out, back to Medieval-like times, long before we achieve the futuristic, 100% sustainable world in all places.

I love how Zizek comments on this by discussing how post-apocalyptic worlds are so often portrayed (and pervertedly enjoyed ) in our media, such as books, movies, television, and video games. We love the idea of the world ending in capitalistic society, but why is this? Zizek claims that it stems from an underlying realization or knowledge of the world eventually having to come to an end (at least in the way we know it) in exchange for the resource-depleting lifestyles we lead now. I really resonate with this point and can see how we have fallen in love with such media. (It's almost like we are being prepared for such catastrophes...!)

I had a class in college about sustainable business, and although I never aired this thought, I couldn't help but thinking, as the professor was describing how doomed we are if businesses don't change, "At what point do we just throw in the towel and say let's live for the now?" In reality, I don't owe my life to my grandchildren. What, am I going to forgo long, hot showers so my grandkids can have them? I don't think so.

It is important to think about sustainability and work for a better world. Sitting back and doing nothing won't help, nor will basking in apocalyptic visions. But in my opinion it is equally important to live for the now and enjoy your time on Earth, even though there will be environmental consequences.

And that's why we're doomed.

What exactly do you mean by this?

I believe there is a lot of cognitive dissonance involving how much destruction has been going on, like we as a society aren't willing to admit that there's something wrong. Sure we have plenty of books and movies with a dystopian environmentally ruined future, but how many of us actually take that media as a serious possibility? I feel like some watch that sort of entertainment with a "yeah, like that'll ever happen" mentality.

People are too emotionally bound to the idea that because we've got all these smart and cool things to dominate with, we're better than what we dominate. It fills up our egos with far too much pride. With all the nonsense involving big oil companies trying day in day out to show how much better humanity is with oil while trying to diminish their real earthly impacts, I feel like even if we were to take the top CEOs and presidents of those companies and fly them out to the big garbage pile of the Pacific Ocean and just drop them right into the middle of that floating trash heap, they would still deny the huge impact they're creating is real. Admitting to themselves that they created that huge pile of trash would be too emotionally damning to them.

What it all boils down to, is that for most people, if it's not affecting their own personal life, they could care less. I see it in my parents. They follow the usual routine each eavening of staring at mindless tv programs. As long as nothing interferes with that, they're fine. Sometimes it makes me sad that more than likely, they'll never experience dmt or aya. They're too emotionally invested in the whole baby boomer mindset.

But this is why individual experience is so important in changing things. I could tell someone about these experiences, but they won't get it unless they have the experience themselves, but once they have they're awake.

Those CEOs are deeply set into a machine of supply/demand.
As long as there is demand, you bet your boots there will be supply.
As RAM pointed out, the onus is on the end consumer to demand what they will, the market will surely follow.
As it stands today the system cannot survive without an unlimited supply of oil, which we all know (including those CEOs) is impossible.
Major institutions are divesting from coal, which is amazing. But unfortunately our reliance on oil cannot realistically be dampened, there is too much money at stake.
As you say, dystopia is not an option (it never has been frankly). Utopia is a pipe dream.

What is really going to crunch us as a species (IMO), is the availability of nutrient rich soil for food production and clean water. The distribution and security of which, should be the main priority of our limited oil reserves.
Carbon taxation and eventually a carbon based economy might be our only chance or wrangling this beast back down under our control.
And as BFP pointed out, those with the power to enact a change of this scale had their cultural programming in a time of great growth and prosperity, something which they surely want to hang on to.

.................................



Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned, whereas you will be taking long hot showers. Nero was supposed to be mad. What"s your excuse?

So what exactly should we do then? Are we to forgo all worldly pleasures simply so there can be more future generations? If that's the case then we should all just hook ourselves up to feeding tubes and do nothing else with our lives besides reproduce so we can maximize the amount we have to continue our species for as long as possible.

Obviously this is not realistic, so what are we to do then? Do you live in a house made of completely sustainable materials? Do you dine exclusively on foods from sustainable sources? How's your carbon footprint? What are your clothes made of? How long are your showers? How about the minerals in the chip in the computer you are typing on, is there an unlimited source of those as well?

To use certain things and have certain pleasures we must accept that if we use them, then someone else cannot. This is scarcity, and it will probably be around as long as there are human beings. It cannot be avoided, especially with our current systems and mentalities in place.

If you had to choose between ten human lives 500 years in the future and living out the rest of your own life, which are you truthfully going to choose? As much as we find pride in embracing the idea of preservation of the species, preservation of the self will always win out in the end.

Do you live for quality or quantity of life? I avoid wasting unnecessarily and do community service to clean up the environment around me. But no way am I going to start giving up the pleasures in my life to reserve them for people in the future (who would then just be taking them from those in the further future by using them). This scarcity should bring about technological innovation; if they want it, they'll figure it out. If the world reverts back to a hunter-gatherer state due to incompetence, laziness, and poor mentalities, then so be it.

No, but i do think that we could re-evaluate what it exactly is that gives us worldly pleasures. They don"t necessarily have to be based on the consumption of resources. My favourite worldly pleasure is sitting around doing nothing but thinking about frivolous subjects. I could probably give up my more materalistic passtimes if push came to shove, but never my love for slothful introspection. And i don"t want to come over like some self righteous eco-warrior but, bar the plumbing and the wiring, my house is made of sustainable materials.



I do not think that self preservation and materiaistic worldly pleasures have to be mutually exclusive.



What the kind of mentality of do you mean? Is it the kind of mentality that doesn"t want to give up long hot showers so their grandkids can have them? In your defence, i am guessing that you don"t yet have kids



I like your style. You are presenting an argument that we are actually doing future generations a favour by using up the earths resources, and if they are too lazy or stupid to work out how to make use of the barren landscape that they have inherited from us then sod em, they deserve it.

I can't tell if you're joking? But that's hardly what I'm saying!

I just don't like when we are unnecessarily self-defeating about resource consumption that cannot realistically, or desirably, be avoided.

Thank you for the other interesting points! We do need to incentivize small, pleasurable actions that will result for long-term health of the planet and short-term benefits to ourselves and our environment. But sustainable innovation and changing the status quo requires a lot of upfront costs.

These will be necessary to secure our future on this planet, but at the same time I believe it is every generation's right to find ways to have fun and feel good, even if there are negative externalities!

Future generations don't exist. We DO exist. Therefore I, for one, don't care about future generations. As Campbell said (paraphrasing) "There is an eternity in every moment. There's nothing you can get in the future that you can't get right now". The way I see it, I can experience the entire spectrum of human thought and emotion myself. Future generations won't expand on what we've accomplished in terms of consciousness, so there's no legacy to pick up.

Also, you'd be hard pressed to prove to me that most people alive right now are conscious (at least by my standards).

Can you expand on that comment? What are your standards?

Well, that's disturbing...