Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
Sun Oct 15, 2017, 11:48 AM Oct 2017

Can the destruction of the planet be distilled down to this?


We, as a human species, could have become an "agricultural-based" species well beyond just growing food.

We didn't go that route.

Instead we chose to become an "extraction-based" species.
Mining, drilling, and devastating deforestation.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can the destruction of the planet be distilled down to this? (Original Post) SHRED Oct 2017 OP
Chlorophyll? More like Bore-ophyll!! PubliusEnigma Oct 2017 #1
Why did we chose this route? What human traits account for the path taken? Irish_Dem Oct 2017 #2
G R E E D MFM008 Oct 2017 #4
Bingo, spot on. (My lemonade spewed on keyboard when I read your comment!) NT Irish_Dem Oct 2017 #5
I think industrialization, which requires "extraction," The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2017 #3
The ERoEI of extraction is faaaar higher than agriculture. The_jackalope Oct 2017 #6

Irish_Dem

(46,914 posts)
2. Why did we chose this route? What human traits account for the path taken?
Sun Oct 15, 2017, 11:59 AM
Oct 2017

How did we get to this point?

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,670 posts)
3. I think industrialization, which requires "extraction,"
Sun Oct 15, 2017, 12:01 PM
Oct 2017

was inevitable because agriculture is inherently unreliable. If there's a drought, or too much rain or too much cold or plant diseases or locusts or whatever, the crop is lost. There had to be some way of developing a reliable means of survival even if the crops failed. People invented things at first to improve agricultural production (e.g., metals for plows), which led to more extraction of natural resources, and so it went.

The_jackalope

(1,660 posts)
6. The ERoEI of extraction is faaaar higher than agriculture.
Tue Oct 17, 2017, 07:17 AM
Oct 2017

Once part of humanity became convinced that growth and expansion was in their best interest, extraction became inevitable. This is because metals make rapid expansion possible through the use of weapons. Once that part of humanity began to expand outward using metal weapons, the fate of every new non-extractive society it bumped into was either to adopt the same practices or cease to exist.

This all began to happen in about 4000 BCE. See James DeMeo's "Saharasia" hypothesis, which I find deeply explanatory when it comes to the origins of the growth imperative, patriarchy (patrism), hierarchies and the violence associated with it all. It all seems to go back to climate change in a wide swath of land from the Sahara into the Caucasus.

Modern society seems to be the product of climate change. Ironic, no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
http://www.orgonelab.org/saharasia.htm

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Can the destruction of th...