In response to the common "nature is spooky, fuck it" argument

Submitted by reposter in Anarchism (edited )

It's a big dead uncaring rock, we don't have to let people die for not meeting its "terms"

Would you complain if someone jumped out of a building to their death and suggest that the laws of gravity are oppressive?

If you destroy your home, you have nothing to sustain your life and you'll die. Everyone and everything that depends on that home for sustenance will die.

Your sense of entitlement to some freedom from basic ecological realities is a form of species narcissism.

It sprouts from the same logic as colonialism, racial supremacy, nationalism, and all other domination complexes. "We're better and the world revolves around us, at any cost." These narcissistic destructive arguments only exist to allow people to put their fingers in their ears and continue the destruction for short-term gratification without thinking about the disastrous consequences for everyone.

Most anticivs (and scientists, historians) recognize that each ecosystem can sustain a certain number of people before it collapses. This is completely rational and scientific. It's not genocidal, ableist or what have you to recognize that resources aren't infinite and humans can be destructive to their environment. It isn't murderous to ask that we think about our impact on our environment and not prioritize growth / "progress" over sustainability.

Willfully ignoring ecosystem collapse through resource depletion and environmental destruction, on the other hand, out of some narcissistic faux-morality, could be described as genocidal.

8

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

smolcat wrote (edited )

Would you complain if someone jumped out of a building to their death and suggest that the laws of gravity are oppressive?

I'd complain if someone pushed me out of the building because I was going to end up on the ground anyways instead of giving me a chance to look for the stairs, otherwise you're probably not going to run into a whole lot of substantive disagreement because nobody really argues about the need to live within ecological limits.

EDIT also holding to positions that marginalized people consistently criticize as bigoted could mean one of 2 things:

  • oppressed people don't know what they're talking about
  • you don't know what you're talking about
1