Saturday, March 13, 2004
Everything changes, while everything stays the same.
I'm sitting at my computer, typing an argument for the destruction of civilization, and thinking on some deep level about where the food is going to come from, and whether or not I'm going to get laid.
I am not arguing for a return to the past, or an elimination of change in the broad sense. By arguing for the removal of certain institutions, rituals, processes, and elements of infrastructure, I am posing a suggestion for the direction in which humanity does its changing.
A guy sat in front of his top of the line electric typewriter, writing a paper for a college class about how mechanization in factories around the turn of the century had led to an overall loss of American jobs. In the back of his mind was this nagging sensation reminding him to think about where the food was coming from, and whether or not he was likely to get laid.
We're selfish. That doesn't change. At the base, what we all want is food, sex, shelter, and a safe place to take a shit. In short, we want survival. Given the current trajectory of changes in how civilization functions, how we (ab)use the planet, and the ability of our landbase to support us, getting rid of civilization is just about the only way we're going to survive.
With a fountain pen and a few scraps of paper, a young and unknown journalist wrote a critique of the now raging industrial revolution, suggesting that mechanization of production would, in the long run, lead to fewer jobs. He was writing in hopes that he could sell his commentary to a magazine or a newspaper, and buy food, or take a girl out and possibly get laid.
The oldest evidence of human creativity, and therefore human life in the way that we know it, comes in the form of a stone axe dated to be 350,000 years old. According to researchers, this axe was placed in a burial site for symbolic purposes.
Quill and ink pens scratch out opposition to slavery, coming slightly before it's time. Hopes across the land are optimistic for the young nation. Food and sex are on the forefront of many people's minds.
By Daniel Quinn's estimate, Civilization is around 10,000 years old. That means only about 2.9% of human history has been in the civilized world. What's more, the industrial revolution and its subsequent surge of urban growth didn't kick off until the 18th century. That's less than 1% of our history spent as industrial people. That kind of timeframe tells me that by no means is this way in which we are living the only way to live, nor is the direction in which we are headed the only way to go.
Still, quill and ink. Now we're writing about King George, crying for liberty from the English crown, and we're thinking about food and sex.
What could be better than this? We have it made, right? Flush toilets and jet skis, easy 'round the world' transportation, and all human knowledge delivered to us for a pittance of a monthly fee via high speed internet connections. How could life be better?
A young Roman is carving a protest against the Caesar into granite. It's time consuming and dangerous, but there's this girl who wants him to do it, and he's hoping to get laid.
When I look to the past, it's not to rebuke the present, or to conform the future. It is to find ideas that worked. By hunting and gathering our own food, we each only had to put in three or four hours a day. By living in small communities where the power structure was so decentralized that the outside observer would have a hard time even knowing it was there, we were able to live in peace with our neighbors (rather than in fear of them). By living within our means, and not overtaxing our land base, we were able to live in (relative to today's militarized world) total peace. The future, of course, is not the past. That doesn't mean we can't take a lesson here or there.
Now, on clay tablets, a Mesopotamian elder is describing some of the methods for fertilizing the desert soil. This way, his people will produce food, and he will eat.
One of the hardest things that I live with is the knowledge that the fall of civilization is not something that might happen. Unless every single human being individually and collectively undergoes a voluntary transformation to a more sane and sustainable way of living, we're fucked. Which is to say, we're fucked. But life is a beautiful, ever-changing adventure. Should we dwell on the inevitable destruction that we face? Perhaps. It is possible that by discussing the logistics of the end, and envisioning a new beginning, we might be able to direct some of the inevitable changes that face humanity, and in fact all life (and rocks) on the planet. We might be able to direct change toward something beautiful, whole, and sustainable. Or should we give up, and live the good life while it's around?
We paint pictures on the cave walls to describe to each other the world as we see it. We spend a few hours every day making sure there is enough food. Whenever possible, which is really a lot, given the fact that the concept of monogamy has yet to come along, we get laid.
Some things change, while some things stay the same. For instance, what any living thing wants has always been (and probably will always be) food and sex. That doesn't change. How we go about getting those things, however, does.
Posted at 03:50 pm by diginhalation
Friday, March 12, 2004
"Is America the best country in the world?"
"Spam is 50 cents off today."
Posted at 12:52 pm by antsaint
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
An Interview in Stone, Or, A Rock Tells All:
Billions of years ago, things here used to be real quiet. Sure there were the volcanoes blowing up, but those lightweights never could hold their magma. The thunderstorms were always my favorite. They made some noise, but they left you all clean and fresh afterwards. It was a simpler time, quieter... a time when you just felt the sun on your surface layers and were glad to be not alive.
ó Quarry Quibble, From "Interview with a Rockpile", coming soon from Aborigirati Publications *
Imagine being a rock, like this chap above, 3 billion years ago. The planet is in constant upheaval; there are storms and eruptions and earthquakes, but otherwise it's just you and some water and, well, a lot of other rocks. That's it. No salmon or chickens, no trees or carrots, not even a poet or Dick Clark.
But it doesn't stay that way.
Then one day something... crawled... over me. At first I tried not to think about it. But it happened again. I thought it'd go away, but it didn't. Suddenly there were more of them. They were everywhere, creeping and crawling. And the noise! All this sliding and skittering and munching... It was something new. Something that wasn't still, wasn't quiet... and it didn't just exist ó it was alive. And it wasn't alone. Suddenly, the world got loud. Really damn loud. And I knew that it was all headed to ruin from there.
Evolution is for the Uppity
I have absolutely no evidence, scholarship or research to back up the following. Oh well.
An argument for aboriginal culture and against the continued existence of civilization: we lived just fine without it. In other words, the status quo was sufficient; who are we to think that something else might be better?
The first ones were bad enough, but then more kept coming. And they all kept changing. They got heavier, faster. They stamped us without thought, kicked us into the air without giving a damn that we'd been lying where we were since before they crawled out of the sea. Sometimes I just wanted to throw myself at them, stupid loud whippersnappers. Some of them grew through us, or on us ó they'd latch on, grip us and just eat us to bits. I had one myself; for centuries I was slowly digested. Hurt like hell. Damn thing probably would've dissolved me, had the Big Rock not crashed down and wiped up damn near everything, bless its fragmented soul.
The millenia that have seen the life and death of generations of aboriginal societies are hardly a moment in geological or biological time. Like those organic and non-organic entities before us, we did just fine as we were. Why change?
We also did just fine as pre-humans. Why deviate from that ancient lineage? When did we become too good to be Australopithecus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon?
Or turn the clock back even further, from these uppity evolutionary upstarts. Humans and pre-humans evolved from a rather prestigious line of lifeforms, who certainly had gotten on just fine for millions of years. It must've taken some extreme spunk and arrogance to decide that being a primate wasn't good enough. There had better have been some perceived high benefit, after all, to justify the end result of losing a highly useful and damn cute tree-swinging tail.
Yet. What's so special about being bipedal, anyway? At some point primates decided that where they came from didn't cut it. Each and every creature has just bloody well kept changing, those uppity tossers. Why a spine?? Why an endoskeleton instead of an exoskeleton? What's wrong with being insectile? What the hell are we doing on land, anyway?? Life evolved in the sea ó what, we too good to swim??? When did life decide that it had to live in the first place? Something wrong with being a rock or just a bunch of atoms?
You get the point.
'Course, the meteor didn't do everything in. This life stuff, whatever it is, is nothing if not resilient. Eventually I felt the creepy-crawlers again, and eventually there were more. Now there are a lot of them with loud things that dig us deep, that cut us and melt us. I just wish another Big Rock would come. This whole life thing is overrated. All it does is get in a big damn hurry, always eating and shagging or trying to do one or the other. It's not all it's cracked up to be. I don't know when being inanimate stopped being good enough, but the sooner these creepycrawlers get quieted down for good, the better. I'm tired of all the bustle and racket; I just want things peaceful again, so I can go back to being a simple rock in a simple world.
Humans, like life in general, don't particularly care about the whining and whinging of a rock though. They're too busy changing to whatever is around at the time, or dying and making way for something that adapted better. It ain't gonna get quiet. The party of life, chaotic and in flux, is here to stay, regardless of form, regardless of complexity, regardless, even, if we dafty humans seem able to wipe out a good deal of life itself. Life changes, because the world in which it exists is always changing. The cause might be the stars, the cars or too many executives brainstorming ideas in the bars, but life doesn't care. It deals with what is put in front of it, and goes on. If it makes a change that works well under the current circumstances, that bit of life continues. If not, then it doesn't.
Civilization developed because in the course of existence, humans try different things to adapt to what is around them. Humans are not static, because life and the world are not static. Wipe out every organism on this planet, and things would be different. Though they won't stay that way. Earth's been there before, after all. There were billions of years where there were no lifeforms, not even bacteria or Dick Clark. Then, suddenly, there were trilobytes and American Bandstand. And probably a bunch of rocks causing landslides, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in a minerological attempt to tell their new noisy neighbors to keep it down and shut up.
Posted at 12:56 pm by antsaint
Sunday, February 22, 2004
I just realized that I made a stupid error in my last post. I said I would lay out only two ground rules, and proceeded to lay out three. Ironically, the third rule is "no deletion or editing". Whoops.
Posted at 07:12 pm by diginhalation
Saturday, February 21, 2004
And now we are all here, and it is time to let the games begin. Also, it is time for me to shed more insight as to why I have invited you to join this project. To begin, welcome. You are here, primarily, to share your opinions, and to duke out the particulars of where this civilization may be heading (as well as what might be done to aim us in a desirable direction).
You are also here to keep me honest. I have realized that some of the ideas which I have expressed in writing these entries may not have been entirely clear, and could have used quite a lot more fleshing out in the details. I have done a poor job of taking into account that there are innumerable perspectives other than my own. I have left certain basic assumptions unquestioned. In short, I have been allowing myself to rant. By changing the format of this site, and building dialogue rather than diatribe, I hope to be challenged to express my ideas in a broader and more accessible way. I also hope that through dialogue, all of our ideas and actions will have the nurturing and care which they need to grow more robust.
I will lay out only two ground rules for this debate (which, I hope, will go on for some time);
1) If you believe it, donít give up. I donít care whose mind isnít going to be changed or whose is. This is not about changing minds; itís about expanding them.
2) There will be no shame in conceding a point, ever. If the idea of a dialogue is to fertilize ideas, we should allow them to grow, and not stifle them with concepts of Ďwinningí and Ďlosingí. This is a debate, not an argument. Despite the position of a thousand high school and college forensics clubs, no one wins or loses a debate. We are not our ideas, and if we all walk away from an issue with better ideas than we had before, we all win. No boasting, no whining.
3) No deletion or editing. Once itís there, itís there, regardless of how drunk you are. Proofread before you post.
Any further ground rules, if we feel we need them, will be consented upon before going into effect.
So, weíre here. And we already have a topic up for debate.
What is the value of an idea? Can an idea change the nature of reality? Does an idea have power of itís own, beyond the power to spur action?
Personally, from where I sit (on my back porch, smoking cigarettes in the cold) ideas seem to have some intrinsic value (or else, why would I be writing this?). On the other hand, an ideaís value seems to be multiplied by a large factor when it becomes action.
Also, some ideas have negative value. Take fascism, for example. This is a bad idea.
As Iím writing this, I begin to think about the subjective nature of value, especially in the realm of ideas. We talk about fascism and Nazism as bad ideas now that they have been played out as realities, but before the National Socialists, Francoís Spain, Mussoliniís Italy, and other such fascist and Nazi regimes, there were a number of people who thought of fascism and Nazism as pretty good ideas. The value of the idea, then, is altered by the value of the action. Suppose fascism had been all it promised to be. We would think of it as a good idea, rather than a bad one.
An idea, as a solitary entity inspiring no action, may be value neutral from an objective stance. Only when an idea spawns action does it gain value (in the positive or the negative, as the case may be). However, where are we to find the seed of our actions if not in ideas?
It should be noted that by value neutral, I don't mean that it is without value. An idea which is not acted upon exists in the realm of potential. Once stated publicly, an idea can lie dormant for centuries before becoming a reality. I look to the example of Marxist communism, which has never existed in the world as we know it. There have been nations whose structures were similar in form to those which Marx described as socialism, but communism is still in the idea stage. Perhaps one day in the future there will be a real communist state, and only then will we be able to determine the real value of Marx's ideas.
All of this, of course, leads back to my central argument regarding Civilization. To become Civilized was the seed idea which led to all these other ideas we all have. All modern ideas, from French Toast to Congress, assume on a fundamental level that people were meant to become Civilized, and that there is no alternative. When we examine history, we do so from a linear perspective, and assume that an idea from before would be untenable now. To live as our ancestors do would be at best an anachronism, and at worst a disaster, our ideas tell us. But what if this is a fallacy? What if, as I propose, the seed idea, the dawn of civilization, was an idea built on falsehood. This would put everything we know, at it's core, into question. That's what I would like to do.
Posted at 01:27 pm by diginhalation
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
I guess I bring this triad to completion. Dig is the mastermind behind this, Ant's the pragmatist, and I'm the dreamer. Every group needs one.
One could say that i've been in the business of meme propagation for going on five years now. For me, ideas are not vague, ethereal things floating disconnected from human affairs. Ideas are the most real things we have, the foundation of every action taken. It's my view that rather than trying some form of band-aid reform to fix the problem (as it has been laid out by dig) we have to attack the root of the issue, the philosophy that allows such actions to continue. As Ant has pointed out, if civilization is brought to it's knees, what is to stop people from building it again? Merely the desire to avoid such a cataclysm again. I don't view civilization itself as the problem, though in it's current manifestation it behaves like a malignant cancer. I would like to believe that there is a way to have my cake and eat it too. That there is a way for human advancement to continue without devouring everything in it's path. I think this solution lies in the mind.
Most of us have read Stephenson's Snowcrash and are familiar with the concept of thought virii. The meme of crass consumption is a particularly rampant virus, etching itself so deeply into our minds that we barely even notice it's there. We're exposed to it from birth and from the start it's the core philosophy of all our surroundings. It's so deeply ingrained in us that most will never even recognize it, let alone question it. So, instead, we go ahead with our lives, building upon this crumbling foundation, and then wondering why, when we get everything we think we wanted, we are still miserable. This is more and more evident daily, as the numbers of depression rise, concurrent with the number of anti-depressants on the market. Like some Huxlian dystopia, we pop a pill and everything is supposed to be fine. And it is, for a little while.
I like to visualize myself acting as an immune system for the human race. Fighting the thought cancers that plague us. Civilization triumphs by building walls, seperating, causing division and distrust- between nations, races, and individuals. It conquers by refusing to recognize anything else as a thinking, feeling, individual. It builds walls of otherness and alienation, making people look to their differences rather than to their similarities. It is this lack of connection that is driving us down. Humanity is, on the whole, a herd species. There is no point in history when we have existed singularly. The Steppenwolf is the oddity, driven to nihilistic destruction by his own loneliness. We group together and rely on one another to survive. I see it as part of my job to make people see this, that we need each other, and not just the people that we like, but we need that obnoxious person in the pub, that self-centered person in front of us in line. And they need us, our presence and our compassion. Maybe not understanding, that takes more time, but we need to recognize them as individuals like us, rather than some dehumanized mechanism to be used for some end.
It's like i'm being tied to the hood of a yellow rental truck, being packed in with fertilizer and fuel oil, pushed over a cliff by a suicidal mickey mouse!
We are on a collision course with calamity. I hope the three of us can agree on that. Without some form of change, we will be faced with a cataclysm on par with another ice age. Maybe we need such a cataclysm to make people realize the need for change. I hope not, because it won't be the affluent who suffer, but rather those who are already dealing with the fall-out of industry, those in the Third World who don't have our first class medical care, who don't have our access to potentially life-saving technology. One need only look to the decimation that is racing through Africa as they feel the after-effects of colonialism in renewed ethnic conflicts, the devastating toll of AIDS, as well as the environmental effects of a burgeoning industrial system. This scene will replay itself from the cradle of civilization to the New World, unless we collectively realize the damage we are doing and act swiftly to change it. I hope this site can spark some new ideas as to the change we need.
Posted at 02:18 pm by lolo
Monday, February 09, 2004
Every group needs its gadfly.
Such is me.
Into the Fray
I've invited two new authors to join ::D::O::W::N::F::A::L::L::, antsaint and lolosrun. Ant is the most perpetual realist I've ever encountered, and a wonderfully insightful friend.
Dig, that was very tactful. I would've opted for "Ant is a bastard who tends to talk when you least want him to, and say what you least want to hear". My thanks to him for inviting me on-board the downfall ride.
AntSaint is the handle; Anthony (or Ant) is the name. Of the 3 downfallers, I'm going to be the devil's advocate, pisser-offer, and conservative-sounding realist jackass. For about a year now Dig and I have been talking about the value of civilization, its merits, its wrongs and whether or no the whole damn thing should just be scrapped. We agree and disagree on a lot of things. I won't tell you what or which. You might figure them out as you go, but you might only think you do.
Above all, I'm the civilization posterboy of the three. My background includes travel, a BA in English and journalism, small business, and a long time of looking at the world with a hopeful yet smartassed eye. I love work, technology, travel, the internet, lassis, lasses, sarcasm, coffee, bicycles, cars, flying over the Pacific Ocean, you name it. I love that humans are capable of so much. I love our communication, our potential, our willpower and our quest for love and liberation. I love the variety of the world, and how different peoples can interact, learn and grow.
But we're also a bunch of bastards, and our own worst enemies. Much of what we people do is screwed up, and much of what we people do, just screws us up. Like Dig and Lolo, I see a need for change. I don't know the what or how yet though.
Get to the point, and get on it
I'm not much of an idea man. I care about the path, the action, the implementation... and the idea. I always try to remember that an idea without implementation doesn't do anything for anyone. Ideology gets on my nerves; it too often removes a person from the flesh and the earth and the real. I'll expand on ideas and actions, and discuss implications they could entail. Let's say civilization's infrastructure does fall apart. Peachy (well, no), but still -- what next?
The world has no reset button
Many of my posts will be rapid-fire -- a few observations here, an analysis there, a response to another post. There'll be larger, more in-depth pieces, but I'm going to try to post at least a little bit every couple of days.
Dig describes me as a realist. There's more than a bit of truth in that, but again he's being very tactful. I'm a detail dork, meticulous and analytical to a fault. I see nitty-gritty. It ain't pretty. I see possibility and hope, but I also understand limitation and the finite.
Some of what I say, might piss you off. If it doesn't, I'll be very disappointed in myself. Most of what I say will hopefully keep you thinking. All of what I say might be wrong -- except for this: the world has no reset button. There is no clean slate, no starting over. There is continuation. The context in which the future becomes the present, and what that present is like, is in part up to us. I hope this discussion gives people ideas for their lives and for how they interact with other people and creatures and the world.
In the end, there's not one. Things just go on and on. For me, none of this is really about an end or a fall or a downfall. It's about the rise of something better.
We'll see what happens.
Posted at 08:07 am by antsaint
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Just a note to anyone who might follow these rants;
I've invited two new authors to join ::D::O::W::N::F::A::L::L::, antsaint and lolosrun. Ant is the most perpetual realist I've ever encountered, and a wonderfully insightful friend. Lolo is a utopian dreamer with a knack for sparking even the most apathetic imagination with images of a beautiful future.
So, Downfall is to become more of a dialogue, and less of a diatribe. Hopefully that'll spark some more interesting topic matter. Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. I've challenged the two of them to challenge me, the romantic nihilist full of hopeless idealism (and each other) to expound further upon some of the less clear moments of my thinking.
To the end of civilization, friends, drink up.
Posted at 09:55 pm by diginhalation
Saturday, January 17, 2004
I'm about ready for some semantics. My Webster's has "Civilization" as;
1 a. A relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specif. the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of records is attained
(as a sidenote, 3 b. reads "a situation of urban comfort." The definitions between 1 a. and 3 b. deal mostly with 'being civilized' and 'refinement of taste.')
This definition fails miserably, as it assumes a hierarchical structure within culture, and thus, it falls into a fallacy; culture develops organically, and the organic world exists without hierarchy.
I would propose as a more appropriate definition, or in the least, a definition which I can use for the purposes of description; 1 a. groups of humans who store food and resources beyond their immediate needs specif. those groups whose cultural artifacts, rituals, and processes disregard the natural balance of life on earth. b. groupings of any being who rely on domination of other beings for the survival of their cultural artifacts, rituals, and processes.
Here's another fallacy, one of mine, and I'll admit to it freely. Destroying civilization is improbable (though maybe not impossible) because the cultural trappings of civilization are bound to crop up again in any grouping of people. I'm most interested in destroying the infrastructure which makes civilization possible, or more accurately, looking on with glee as civilization's infrastructure destroys itself.
I thought to myself, when I was beginning to ponder these issues, why wouldn't civilization as we know it simply build itself back up once it had been destroyed. I posed the question to Derrick Jensen, the asshole who got me thinking about all of this shit in the first place, and he made a very good point.
In the early part of human history, we define periods of our cultural and technological evolution based on the minerals we used for tools. The stone age, bronze age, iron age, etc...
As we moved through those periods, we have exhausted more and more of those mineral deposits from the earth, and today in order to access oil, bronze ore, iron ore, and other useful minerals, it is necessary to have large quantities of oil or other fuel in reserve, because it takes a whole fucking lot of energy to get ore from the depths at which we have to mine it.
If, or when as I would prefer it, a major event or simply an exhaustion of fuel, brings civilization to a point at which it can no longer access the deep deposits of ore for use in new tools, it will be only a matter of time before the remaining iron, bronze, or what have you, is lost to rust, wear, and war.
In discussions regarding the end of civilization, the point is bound to be made that, in the event of a downfall which some humans survived. The question will be raised; How are we to erase the trappings of civilization from the minds of people. My answer is this; we should by no means try to do so. Once it has been made impossible to live within the boundaries prescribed by civilization, there is no reason to erase it's trappings from the surviving humans. In fact, there is a large reason to keep it there.
I imagine telling the story of the fall to my great grandchildren (and yes, there's a strong chance that I won't live that long). I imagine explaining, in terms that one who has never witnessed electricity, and has no idea what a gigabyte is, how we lived, how we died, and how life changed. I imagine my stories being told by my great grandchildren to their great grandchildren, and so on down the line, until they have changed so much that they aren't the same story, but a new one, not so much about how we lived, but about how we live now, and how we may live differently tomorrow.
This is all about the organic nature of culture, and the toxic additives that civilization pollutes it with. After civilization, there will be no need to fertilize the human mind, it will be made fertile by the winds, the forest fires, and the duff of fallen empire.
Posted at 09:42 pm by samandtaylor
Monday, November 10, 2003
I'm going to publicly respond to a comment made by my friend Ant about one of my entries. Here's the comment, just so you don't get confused;
"We keep buying these carcasses (every product is a carcass)"
There's a fundamental law of biology that says "to live is to kill". "Every product is a carcass" is an accurate statement; it rides a bit much on shock value, but still, it's accurate. The thing is, it's accurate no matter what. If a net kills a thousand fish, consider it mass murder; but a thrown spear killing one fish is still creating a carcass, and the purpose of that carcass is for your consumption/ nourishment.
No matter your relationship with the earth, no matter the prayer you might say before throwing that spear, it's still creating a carcass. The fish is no less dead.
One other point... "Itís impossible to have a tribe in this culture, because we donít believe that we need each other, so we canít fully rely on one another"
It's one thing to relearn that we need each other, but it's another to take the basis of relationships to nothing but need. EG, Dig, you and I have a relationships based on mutual interests. I don't rely on you to survive. Do I have a need for you on a mental/ spiritual level? Gads yes - but our friendship is based on preference, not necessity.
It is good for a person to rely on themselves. It is good to work hard so you can survive, not just your neighbor. One potential flaw with any sort of tribal social grouping though, is that this group's primary basis for bonding is survival. It's fundamental, but it's forced, and when you force something, it becomes harder and harder to sustain."
So, you're right. Every animal eats to live, and hence consumes. You also bring up the point that it's about scale. I think it's partly about scale, but I think that it's also about realizing our relationship to those things which we consume. In order to catch a fish, one must understand something about how fish live, about what sort of lure they are going to be attracted to, and about where they're going to hang out. In order to buy a package of fish, one has to go to the grocery store, pick out a styrofoam package that looks about the right size for what they're cooking, and pay for it. In the case of fish, it's easy to realize and be mindful of the fact that the fish is a carcass because it looks like flesh, even packed in styrofoam and shrink wrap. In the case of a Jet Ski, it's not so easy. People forget all the time in this culture that the things they use come from beings which were once alive. So, yes. My use of the phrase -every product is a carcass- might be full of shock value, but I think that it's reasonable to try and shock people into realizing something which should be self evident (and which would be impossible to forget if we were all throwing our own nets). Scale be damned- one being killed and not recognized is one too many.
Furthermore, we are the only being on the planet who consumes more than we need to, and who wastes edible/usable material like we do. This is not a simple problem of overpopulation (though overpopulation does exacerbate the issue). Per Capita, even in poor parts of the world, we consume more than almost any other animal. If we were in relationship to the beings which we were consuming, maybe that wouldn't be the case. Maybe we would have enough respect for the fish to let some of them live through fishing season, so the following year there might be some fish left.
Posted at 02:03 pm by diginhalation