Watts-Montana snippets #3

I want to ask you about ableism: surely technology brings equality or greater equality? For example, and to specific, there is a rack and pinion train which enables people with varying degree of ability/disability to experience the views provided looking out from the top of a mountain, in this case, Yr Wyddfa aka Mount Snowdon in North Wales. Would it be accurate to define any person as being ableist by doing away with such services? Should we do away with such stuff as part of rewilding?   Any manifested reality could be perceived to make individuals more or less able according to that reality’s norm. For example, the current reality could be experienced as disabling to those of us who don’t wish to partake in civilization and want to live in a wild world. In this case, would it be accurate to define those who domesticate the world as being ableist? That is an oppression I’ve experienced every second of every day of my life, hindering my ability to be a wild being. There is no utopia with any reality, but if we humans keep steering the Earth down this path of civilization the end result is massive genocide, and not just for our own species. In this case, would it be accurate to define those who refrain from taking action to end civilization as being not just ableist of future humans, but mass murders?

I want to ask you about violence: Francione claims to be against violence in that violence has never worked. Civilisation is violent and it too has never worked. However, Francione never appears to equate the two? How do you respond? For example, if I was held against my will and being violated, would Francione help me? If I was being violated in front of his eyes, would this be the necessary catalyst for him to help me? If he was in my position, would he expect me to help him by using violence to free him from his abductor? Some say that civilization is indeed very violent though many people don’t pick up on this, arguably this violence has been normalized. What thoughts do you have on this?  This may sound bizarre but we claim to be living in peaceful times yet many people claim we are living in very violent times.   How do you define violence? Here I read it as harm, whether intentional or unintentional, direct or indirect. If you do a statistical analysis of not just all the harm, but all the human deaths caused in one way or another by civilization, the percentage would be staggering. How do we not see civilization as violent? How do we not strive to end this violence? And the more our species populates, the more violence results not just to our species but to most. At this point in time, is human propagation not an act of violence?

Walter Bond, 2014, has a quote on Ian Smith’s blog  in which he claims: “I feel that the technology problem is the source of Animal and Earth degradation. If there was no industry and computer tech, even if everyone hunted and ate Animals, 99% of the Animal abuse and murder that exists today would be gone!”  How do you see it?   Even if that’s a step, a huge step, why stop there? In A Northwoodsman’s Guide to Everyday Compassion, hunter turned vegan Kenneth Damro lays out how hunting with indigenous weapons causes more suffering than hunting with guns. Does that mean we should only use guns to kill animals? It’s a false choice. We don’t need either. Why settle for the lesser of two evils when you can just not chose evil? Further, it is the predatory mindset that results in both hunting and industry. If the core of the problem is not addressed, the problem can be expected to live and grow, manifesting in other forms.

Do you think eating more raw food would be more helpful by way of transitioning than, for example, making and using solar panels? What about changing one’s behaviour such as putting on jumper instead of the heating even though the infrastructure to enable the heating to be switched on is still in place? Many people claim personal changes make no difference. For example, Derrick Jensen wrote his piece explaining that shorter showers won’t save the planet. Does recycling and taking shorter showers really matter?   I’m not going to bicker over what seems trivial, but again we arrive at the predatory mindset that needs changing. That so many humans strive to reduce their harm shows that many are ready to shift toward a gentle co-existence on Earth. What may be missing is the understanding that it is not the details of civilization that are the source of the harm, but civilization itself. That is our stalemate reality that is a hard but vital pill to swallow.

I note you do land restoration and you are supportive of getting rid of invasive species. Would you define the Inuit as an invasive species as you would Japanese Knot weed or English Ivy?    I don’t see how anyone could seriously argue that our species as a whole has not grown invasive. I’m not saying that every species, whether plant or animal, must remain within strict boundaries, but all species have a habitat that they co-adapt and live in mutualistically. Our species is not only driving climate change, but Earth’s 6th great species die off. We have transformed almost all land, shrinking species’ habitats in colonizing the planet. In rewilding Earth we can rediscover a human habitat mutualistically thriving with other species. Search ‘invasive species’ on my blog for more on this.

Or could it matter if people also dropped out of formal institutions too? How do you see it?  It’s a two pronged dynamic, dropping out of civilization while healing Earth and gently dismantling civilization. The more we all participate to the extent we can, the more suffering is reduced and the faster our species rewilds.

Do you fast? Do you think fasting, say 24 hours, drinking water only, would be a way of transitioning? People say food tastes best when you’re hungry and people may begin to appreciate food and not take it for granted? What’s your take on this?  Love it. Good for us and for Earth.

http://www.rewildportland.com/annual-north-american-rewilding-conference/  Will you be going to the Rewilding Conference in Portland 2017? What do you think of such events? Do events such as these form part of how you would like to see transition or could events like these be an unintended gateway to the commercialisation of rewilding: a sort of underground rebellious movement which will be bought out by big money as the small projects seek to widen their message? Many, one time small environmental projects, now large corporations themselves, support so-called “green industry” by endorsing such schemes. What is your opinion on this?  When we connect in mutual aid to rewild, we need to guard the group from commercialization. Being there are few opportunities to connect with other earth liberationist rewilders, it is possible to join in civilization’s rewilding groups to learn skills and then when you connect with others use your rewilding skills.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s