Dear #MastoMind: I'm trying to find a diagram of ecological / environmental / sustainability mindsets / ideologies, across a wide spectrum of beliefs.
The version I recall was a line drawing with text, laid out mostly in a set of vertical columns, I think.
I've spent hours trying to find the image w/o success. It probably dates from at least five years ago.
Some of the contents I seem to recall, none of this may be accurately quoted text:
Again: pulling blanks, would very much like to find this as it's a good summary of the range of views.
I've been pointed to the ecological / sustainability ideology diagram I'd been asking of earlier.
It is Dave Pollard's The New Political Map from 2013.
Thanks to /u/chrisreynolds55 at Reddit.
@dredmorbius I'm not sure I can authoritatively explain any of these, but I think the following blogs about ecofascism are relevant:
Which itself seems to be one of those terms that's changing notably in meaning (see also "fake news" and "social distance", each of which has long-standing meanings significantly different from usage in the past 1-5 years or so).
@michiel Eco-facism used to be a charge leveled mostly by the Right, against ecologists and sustainability advocates, largely inverting the meaning of facism (from a term describing the Right to one more applied to the Left), originating in the late 1980s.
Now it's a charge mostly appearing amongst Left-presenting interests, principally against the Right but also collaterally against a fair bit of the ecological / sustainability movement.
@michiel This post in particular seems to acknowledge at least that the emergence is recent:
Over the last year, the term ‘eco-fascism’ has (re)captured the interest of various political commentators, scholars, and the public in general. The usual storyline explaining this intriguing revival is rooted in the belief, particularly popular among critics in the United States, that white nationalists have somehow discovered and ‘embraced’ environmentalism.
What is going on is that semi-state agencies such as the Oglino trolls have discovered the tactic going all the way back to Usenet rec.pets.cats invasion, of pretending to be aligned with some target group to split them, discredit them, or generally cause chaos.
Boogaloos trying to join up with anti-racist protests and then do crimes like robbing and looting and arson is an example of this tactic trending now into real life.
Right at the end:
"In the fall, Trashcan Man will graduate, God willing. He has no immediate plans, other than to "get a job. Preferably a job with Net access."
In the long run, though, "I have political aspirations," Trashcan Man said. "I'm a member of the Republican Party on campus. I have often proclaimed that I am the future of the Republican Party.""
Here's where the overall US Republican Right strategy was all laid out. Well that and the Turner Diaries for the more extreme right.
The New Right, We're Ready to Lead
Viguerie, Richard A
Published by Viguerie Co
ISBN 10: 0960481427
ISBN 13: 9780960481422
Yeah except it probably won't work on Robbie since his is an apparently humanoid robotish species, but the Krell were somewhat crablike in body configuration based on their doors and implements and the 'monster from the id' outline.
Also of course, different movie lol :)
I did think of that though. lol!
Both great movies.
Forbidden Planet has aged better of the two, due to its groundbreaking sfx and all-electronic score.
It needs a Criterion cleanup and re-release, when FP came out it was so far ahead.
FP was shot at MGM on a huge soundstage surrounded by a gigantic semi-circular matte painting, making it the direct predecessor of the "Volume" used by Favreau & Co for The Mandalorian.
It was in Cinemascope with a 4 track quad stereo score, it deserves rehabilitation.
There is & has been a significant alignment, firstly, between the "back to Nature" sort of environmentalism & the "Blut und Boden" sort of fascism (both of which are usually strongly anti-science), but also between the anti-development campaigns & the authoritarian pets of the Lords Proprietors. This can be traced by any number of threads, & it goes back a long way.
@publius I'm not entirely sure what narrative you're expressing here.
Looking at this from the ecology / limits-to-growth perspective, reality is that the initial response to the suggestion that there might be some sort of ecological limits to growth (biological, technological, economical, ...) on Earth was pretty uniform opposition across the political spectrum, from reactionary Right (Herman Kahn, military strategist and among the inspirations for Dr. Strangelove in Kubric's film) to many on the Marxist Left.
Mauricio Schoijet, a Mexican academic, catalogues much of this in " Limits to Growth and the Rise of Catastrophism" (1999)
(Available on Sci-Hub / LibGen)
Claims that it's the ecologists who are uniformly fascist are ... highly revisionist.
Though yes, there are members of both the left and the right who have ecological sympathies or wrap themselves (as they're wont to do) in this (among many other) cloaks and flags.
Mostly the limits / ecological crowd though are distinguished as adhering to scientific knowledge.
To select a deliberately extreme example, Hermann Göring was very active regarding nature preserves & the protection of wildlife (even rehabilitation of extinct species), partly at least from some conviction that he must hunt the animals hunted by men of the Ice Age in order to reach the Nordic/Aryan ideal. Such associations were not uncommon in his circles.
More broadly, those who adopt the mantle of "ecologists" often seem driven by beliefs beyond the scope of science.
@publius You could paint similar pictures of, say, veganism, birth control, telegraphy, automobiles, chemical fertilisers, just off the top of my head. Or of cities, the postal service, and radio.
Any sufficiently large domain is going to attract psychopaths and political extremists. That's beyond any possible question.
The real question is whether or not those ideologies are central to that domain and its practice.
To take another extreme example, the pursuit of atomic weapons attracted and involved Albert Einstein, Leslie Groves, Robert Oppenheimer, Edward Teller, Richard Feynman, and Klaus Fuchs.
I'd be very hard pressed to find any ideological straight line through them, other than the project itself. Einstein an avowed socialist, Groves hardline military, Oppenheimer with strong socialist tendencies and numerous communist associations, Teller about as far right as you can go, and Fuchs ideologically Communist enough to leak secrets to the USSR.
Sometimes the ideological line simply does not exist.
This discussion is boring me.
I suspect there is a great distance between actual ecology & what is promoted by people who talk about "sustainability". The conclusion seems dictated by the constant promotion, by the latter group, of biofuels, which are nothing short of disastrous in their environmental impacts, & other technologies with very high land, water, & other resource footprints.
@publius What part of "This discussion is boring me" don't you understand?
You know, if it were physically possible for me to have read the message in which you said that before I composed what you are replying to, maybe I would have done something different. But this is at best a pleisynchronous mode of communication.
@publius That's an odd way of saying "I'm sorry, missed the message."
@publius @dredmorbius a key belief of the "sustainability" crowd (I've also seen it used by people who honestly work to reduce our footprint) is that first-world existence is the reference point, and that we need merely replicate this standard of living using "green" technologies. Electric cars instead of petrol cars. Synthetic meat instead of real meat. Biodiesel planes instead of kerosine.
Experience since the 1970s has shown that people will do virtually anything to obtain that "first-world existence". Coal burning in China isn't just a threat in terms of global climate, it's a disaster in terms of public health ― but the Chinese generally feel that it's worth the tradeoff. Hence any kind of ecological discourse which assumes some kind of large-scale asceticism, giving up the benefits of technic civilization, isn't likely to get anywhere.
I think you miss the point of what I am saying, which is that (on the basis of the evidence) people cannot be relied upon prioritize, when making choices, avoiding even very visible near-term harms. If you assume that they will make choices so as to avoid more distant harms, even of catastrophic magnitude, there is considerable doubt that any approach you come up with will succeed.
(1/3) How many people this planet can support in a "first-world existence" is a matter of the pro-rata biospheric burden. With enough energy, freshwater may be obtained chiefly from reclamation & desalting, food from "urban vertical farming" rather than field culture, mineral raw materials from a combination of intensive recycling & upgrading of dilute sources such as seawater & fossil brines ― thus sharply reducing the effective footprint of the individual.
(2/3) This "hard path" high-energy, high-technology, high-standard-of-living approach is hardly acceptable to most who proclaim their concern for the environment. It may, however, be the most feasible way to avoid catastrophe in a world which already has as many people as ours ― if indeed it can be implemented. The basic question is, can the requisite energy be supplied? At a guess, this might be, for each of 15 billions, 3× the current US average consumption.
(3/3) A technically adequate means of supplying energy on this scale, for tens of thousands if not in fact millions of years (far beyond any timescale where our present ideas of sustainability have meaning) has been in practical use now for three generations. It is broadly anathematized by environmentalists ― as was brought out explicitly in the debates of the 1970s ― precisely because it potentially could make the "hard path" sustainable.
@publius @dredmorbius (1/2) I find this stab-in-the-back myth (promoted by Schellenberger et al) a bit worrying. Historically, environmentalists have not wielded much power. Green parties don't rule countries, environmentalist policy is only adopted when an issue resonates with a significant part of the population, usually because there are (perceived) health risks.
In the case of nuclear, public opinion was additionally swayed by a number of high-profile fuckups.
@publius @dredmorbius (2/2) Additionally, this report by the German labour research institute claims that nuclear was uneconomical even in the 1950s. I haven't checked out all the references, but it might be worth digesting: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.670581.de/dwr-19-30-1.pdf
So far as "narrative" is concerned, I don't know that I have one as such. I see how anti-development protests dovetail neatly with the interest of landlords to keep housing in short supply in areas of high demand. I have been told to my face that people in poor countries are better off without washing machines, because that kind of life of backbreaking labour is more authentically human. And discussions of "population control" consistently present a certain viewpoint.
@dredmorbius I do have a post with how various Christian groups see climate change, but I guess that is not what you mean with "believe" here.
@VictorVenema Probably not what I'm looking for but that sounds interesting. Do please share.
@dredmorbius 😎 Toots need a warning that the attachment is missing. Here it is: http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2013/05/christians-on-climate-consensus.html
@VictorVenema And a warning that whatever you've written has a tpyo density above any reasonable standard.
(I do better when, as presently, I'm at a keyboard. Mobile devices ... suck.)
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!