Comments on: END:CIV Premise 1

By: Eivind

Eivind — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:28:50 +0000

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?

By: Jamie

Jamie — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:16:24 +0000

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.

By: Wanneby

Wanneby — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:27:05 +0000

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.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:03:18 +0000

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.

By: IS IT THE END? « No ego

IS IT THE END? « No ego — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:54:59 +0000

[...] http://submedia.tv/endciv/2009/10/27/endciv-premise-1/ [...]

By: stimulator: Derrick Jensen Q and A in Vancouver « Dandelion Salad

stimulator: Derrick Jensen Q and A in Vancouver « Dandelion Salad — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:04:53 +0000

[...] subMedia recently held a fundraiser for END:CIV in Vancouver where we premiered the latest clips from the movie. We also beamed in Derrick Jensen via weblink where attendees could ask him [...]

By: Derrick Jensen Q and A at subMedia

Derrick Jensen Q and A at subMedia — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:22:09 +0000

[...] recently held a fundraiser for END:CIV in Vancouver where we premiered the latest clips from the movie. We also beamed in Derrick Jensen via weblink where attendees could ask him [...]

By: Derrick Jensen Q & A at END:CIV

Derrick Jensen Q & A at END:CIV — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:08:38 +0000

[...] recently held a fundraiser for END:CIV in Vancouver where we premiered the latest clips from the movie. We also beamed in Derrick Jensen via weblink where attendees could ask him [...]

By: givinguptv

givinguptv — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:20:10 +0000

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?

By: brad smith

brad smith — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:46:25 +0000

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.