Download Premise 1 (MP4 120MB)
Transcribe / Translate clip
Download Clearcuts Version 2 (MP4 120MB)
Transcribe / Translate clip
Here’s the latest from END:CIV. Both clips include footage and interviews we shot during our west coast tour. Interviews include Ward Churchill, John Zerzan, Lierre Keith and Dr. Michael Becker.
The first piece breaks down the first premise of Derrick Jensen’s “Endgame”
“Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.”
The second clip is an updated edit of “Clearcuts” first released on the world wide web in June 2009.
fucking excellent, stimulator. may you be blessed by the deity or deities of your choice as you continue this crucial mission.
A W E S O M E.
keep it up!
Krakatoa
Jensen is sad
Half right, half so wrong
end:civ on a computer?
my pov briefly touched on here:
http://www.gnn.tv/B33033
j.c., i disagree.
i don’t really understand this argument and i want to address it.
i’ve seen a lot of people say they disagree with derrick, but the ones i least understand are those coming from other somewhat “anti-civ” individuals.
how is the use of technology contrary to primitivism?
it would be a huge error on our parts to act as if the use of tech like computers to bring down civilization should be shunned completely.
purism is shit from the start. do you drive? smoke? live in civilization at all for that matter? if so, your unpure. but thats ok. we all are. and to try and be “pure” of that fact is ridiculous. we need results, not pure-ness.
and by the way, if that wasn’t your point at all, i apologize. i’ve just seen a good deal of that attitude lately and i felt obliged to say something. even so, i respect your opinion 100%. just throwin in some dialogue.
thanks,
BT
we cannot just look on and congratulate derrick and others for their work in our stead.
the bottom line to this endciv idea is a massive depopulation event, an asteroid would be perfect, it would get the survivors working in unison to use up the remaining non sustainable resources more slowly.
the Earth would allow a billion civilized humans to continue living on with rich people, servants and middle class,living “civilized” lives.
Looking forward to going somewhere besides Earth is foolishness, drinking reconstituted urine gets old after a week, not taking a breath of fresh air, living in a cubicle the size of a prison cell, stupid. Maintaining extensive “culture” in a space capsule impossible, instead of grunts and howls the space suited travelers would develop words to mean more than they do now and remove the sensitivity for language that we now have.
if you talk to most activists, they will tell you how difficult it is to motivate others to take part in ANY action, from the very tiniest, least threatening to the status quo, on up. so i ask of commenters (and readers), what action or refusal of action did you make today which will impede the tragic course we are on? did you speak out or in reply to any comment, written statement, action that you know is damaging to the planet and all its residents or forms?
I just love how Derrick Jensen never once has cited an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal in any of his books. He only cites dubious news papers. Scholarly research, that’s too hard, I’ll just make crap up. LOL
I also love that he states premises rather than hypotheses. If it was a hypothesis it would be testable, but since it’s a premise it’s just an assumption.
I mean take the one claim that he loves to make: (90% of large fish in the ocean are gone.
That statement is so vague that it could be completely true or completely false depending on what is meant by “large fish”.
Is a large fish the the upper 10% in size by of all species. Is it the upper 1% of size of a few larger fish species like blue fin tuna. If you want to make a point you have to codify what you are saying, otherwise you’re just spewing random factoids that could mean anything.
To Anonymous
I just love how peer reviewed scientific papers and journals are sponsored by corporatians and lobbyist groups. And how they turn a really simple problem into something completly different.
You can not destroy the landbase and hope to survive, it does not matter how much growth or technology you throw at the problem, the only thing that will grow is the problem it self.
Wanneby is dead on, in that peer reviewed journals are just objects adored by those who ‘choose’ to be ‘in charge’.
But anonymous, what’s up with that? He produces premises(I believe) because this is philosophy, not science.
And as far as your ‘fish’ rant. A simple review of NOAA’s research and other easily available online info will lead you to where he gets his ‘facts’. If non-corporate university based research is just spewing random factiods, then, I guess, you’re right. But, c’mon, people are trying to do something here, expand minds at least, flame and troll somewhere else.
Anonymous:
In biology, “large fish” means >50cm. I believe Derrick Jensen also clearly states what he means by large fish.
If you were as interested in learning more about the topic as you obviously are in finding reasons for not having to care, a quick google search would give you this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html
Or maybe National Geographic and Nature arent scientific enough for you?