Yeah, his logic is faulty re: the bears vs. auto accidents comparison. Jensen is a perfect example of a brilliant, authentic person. He says very astute and meaningful things, but occasionally says...well...other things. Don't count on a guy with a Creative Writing degree for constant adherence to statistical principles. Listen to the "meat" of his meaning.
wikipedia: Jensen says that he sees civilization to be inherently unsustainable and based on violence. He argues that the modern industrial economy is fundamentally at odds with healthy relationships, the natural environment, and indigenous peoples. .... Accordingly, he exhorts readers and audiences to help bring an end to industrial civilization. this man is much more intelligent and creative then myself, but to truly rally behind these ideas appears to be pure ideology. How can it not?
I love Jensen, but here he is wrong! Of course there are more automobile accidents than bear attacks! Most people dont live in the woods, most people live near highways. Reminds me of a Jimmy Carr joke: "There is a 90% more chance of you getting robbed in your home town than in New York City...it's cause you dont live in New York city!"
Dumb comparison. Millions of people are in or around cars every single day, for long periods of time. How many people are around bears per day? and for how long?
Switch that number of people being around cars to being around bears and see how many bears attack.
Just google Timothy Treadwell, he thought bears were harmless and more safe than cars too.............
I believe that civilization is broken, but that we don't need to kill the horse in order to put it out of it's misery. (the horse being civilization).
There's a reason why people DO keep dogs as pets, but do NOT keep bears as pets, can you think of what that might be? Oh, and also, civilization gave us both humane and inhumane methods to deal with bears. Does Derrick Jensen propose to stave off an angry bear with spears and rocks. Damn I guess we couldn't even use spears because that would be technology. *eyeroll* Wake up people.
Uh, (1) I don't think Jensen has ever said that all technology is bad, and (2) there's a distinction between tools (e.g. spears) and technology (e.g. computers).
Please, also if you want to be taken seriously, don't say "Wake up, people". It makes you sound like a complete jerk. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you actually aren't.
Derrick Jensen is a well known Anarcho-Primitivist. Read up on the beliefs of Anarcho-primitivism. Just because he has never said he doesn't like technology doesn't mean it's not true. He says we're culpable for not stopping weyerhaeuser, what do you think you're just going to walk up to weyerhaeuser and ask them to quit making paper products? I don't think so... there will be blood.
And he also says that he doesn't know what the right course of action is for stopping Weyerhaeuser, or he would have done it already.
Bears are less dangerous in part BECAUSE there are fewer of them. If bear numbers were allowed to return to their previous numbers, though, even then there wouldn't be enough hikers for them to entail more risk than a leisurely drive.
As a matter of interest, I'm a primitivist as well, and I know a thing or two about the movement's tenets. Tools are not derided; rather, tool-making is considered an essential skill. Even fairly complex machines wouldn't be too bad a thing, if they could be run without a society behind them - but most of them couldn't. A TV, for example, requires metals mined in all different parts of the world, glass and plastic made in factories, and assembly probably in China. (cont.)
Also, if you want to include people killed by all animals (your aim in that, I suppose, is to figure out the risk of living in the wilderness), you also should include on the other side the number of people killed by civilization. That would run the number into the millions, when you figure in chemical poisoning, government-on-citizen violence, car crashes, war, and (if you're feeling inclusive) all the years of life that people burn doing work they don't want to do.
If you wanted to go and include all of those things, then you would ~again~ be comparing apples to oranges because you'd have to include all of the direct and indirect ways that nature kills people, which are vast. Let's consider all people killed by weather, starvation set on by natural causees, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, all of the worlds diseases. (we'd die by the common cold if we didn't have medicine). Apples and oranges, my friend... apples and oranges.
I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like you may be a primitivist (of some variety) as well. Either that, or I'm mistaken, and by "barking up the wrong tree" you mean I'm a hopeless case. Sounds like we mostly have common ground. Our discussion leads to considering the standard of living for each of these styles of living. And, the few marginalized hunter-gatherer tribes in the world (as far as I've heard) all report pretty great lives, except when civilization interferes.
Also, I seldom take medicine, and I haven't yet died from a disease. The common cold would not kill you without medicine. This is a fact, because I've beaten it numerous times with no medicine, and you have too probably.
Moreover, a great number of diseases are made possible only by civ., and the dense gatherings and very thorough blending it entails. Civ. also exacerbates natural disasters, because a house is a bigger and weaker target than a person (for an earthquake, hurricane, etc.).
And finally, as for starvation, it's actually civilization affected harder, because we rely on monocrops that the weather can easily interfere with. Hunter-gatherers just eat whatever is around, and even in the Kalahari, there's always something around. Jared Diamond quoted a Bushman saying, "Why should we [plant crops like civilized societies] when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?" These Bushmen societies work about five hours a day and the rest is leisure.
What do you mean! If you sabotage a machine - wheres the blood? hmm?? Yes environmentalists are diying upon the bloody hands of people in power, defending their power.
You totally avoided all of my questions, and concentrated on two irrelevant factors that have nothing to do with proving or disproving Derrick Jensen's credibility. Just because you are attempting to discredit me, does not mean that that gives Derrick Jensen credibility.
How many people walk through the woods? How many people drive cars? Ah, this is a classic trick in statistics. He isn't talking percentages, he's just talking straight numbers. How many cars are there in america? Millions and millions. Why aren't people attacked in the woods? Because rangers keep the bears and other wildlife out of the woods near populated areas. This guy is too smart for you people. Go live with the bears for a while... and when they get hungry?
Let's crunch the numbers: in order for walking in the woods to be more dangerous than driving, there have to be (46000*2=)92000 times more drivers than hikers every year in America. There are 175 000 000 licensed drivers in the US. That means there must be at most 1 902 hikers in the US. And that's not even close to true. Even if you only count the ones who go hiking in really deep woods where bears might get at them.
The occurence of bears in wilderness is extremely rare, so of course there would be less chance of a bear killing. What about all animal killings v.s. car accidents. It surely does NOT mean that there must be at most 1902 hikers in the US. If there were as many bears as cars in populated areas, there would be quite a few more bear attacks, no? Bear populations are controlled. THIS is what keeps the death toll low. What about ALL animal attacks? All animal attacks given equal population?
see, humans don´t give bears and other beings the place they need. Humans are getting everywhere...and do not respect the individuality of other creatures. So your answers are really antropocentric.
Here in slovakia, there was ZERO kills by bears in 100 years. Some attacs occured, but only to hunters and loggers, who didn´t respect anything what a bear means! And also people make bears attracted to uncaged garbage in forested areas and unprotected domesticated animals, so whos fault is it?
Bears are bears! If they see you as a threat(danger) they will defend themselves. But people attack other being(and other people) not also as selfdefense, but ...offense, sport, idiocy..
@darlingelf it's a bias on behalf of our species, part of our ignorance, surprised?
seigneurvoland666 1 month ago
Yeah, his logic is faulty re: the bears vs. auto accidents comparison. Jensen is a perfect example of a brilliant, authentic person. He says very astute and meaningful things, but occasionally says...well...other things. Don't count on a guy with a Creative Writing degree for constant adherence to statistical principles. Listen to the "meat" of his meaning.
NDVR08 7 months ago
That is a completely false equivalence. He is like the Peter Sellers Character from "Being There."
faux faux faux faux...
KephenSting 10 months ago
wikipedia: Jensen says that he sees civilization to be inherently unsustainable and based on violence. He argues that the modern industrial economy is fundamentally at odds with healthy relationships, the natural environment, and indigenous peoples. .... Accordingly, he exhorts readers and audiences to help bring an end to industrial civilization. this man is much more intelligent and creative then myself, but to truly rally behind these ideas appears to be pure ideology. How can it not?
dinokralt4 1 year ago
I love Jensen, but here he is wrong! Of course there are more automobile accidents than bear attacks! Most people dont live in the woods, most people live near highways. Reminds me of a Jimmy Carr joke: "There is a 90% more chance of you getting robbed in your home town than in New York City...it's cause you dont live in New York city!"
TheodorBjork 1 year ago
Dumb comparison. Millions of people are in or around cars every single day, for long periods of time. How many people are around bears per day? and for how long?
Switch that number of people being around cars to being around bears and see how many bears attack.
Just google Timothy Treadwell, he thought bears were harmless and more safe than cars too.............
AbeIsLincoln 1 year ago
Bears stay away from us because they are afraid of us. They know that we will kill them for no reason.
heyyouube11111 3 years ago 11
It's typically 2 or 3 (reported) fatal bear attacks per year.
Rev01t 3 years ago
I believe that civilization is broken, but that we don't need to kill the horse in order to put it out of it's misery. (the horse being civilization).
SmoothBurn 3 years ago
yay! level headed comments ftw.
Recessive1 2 years ago
hmmm this is new to me, raw, but I like this guys ethos.
withoutmercyuk 3 years ago 2
There's a reason why people DO keep dogs as pets, but do NOT keep bears as pets, can you think of what that might be? Oh, and also, civilization gave us both humane and inhumane methods to deal with bears. Does Derrick Jensen propose to stave off an angry bear with spears and rocks. Damn I guess we couldn't even use spears because that would be technology. *eyeroll* Wake up people.
SmoothBurn 3 years ago
Uh, (1) I don't think Jensen has ever said that all technology is bad, and (2) there's a distinction between tools (e.g. spears) and technology (e.g. computers).
Please, also if you want to be taken seriously, don't say "Wake up, people". It makes you sound like a complete jerk. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you actually aren't.
Number3Pencils 3 years ago
Derrick Jensen is a well known Anarcho-Primitivist. Read up on the beliefs of Anarcho-primitivism. Just because he has never said he doesn't like technology doesn't mean it's not true. He says we're culpable for not stopping weyerhaeuser, what do you think you're just going to walk up to weyerhaeuser and ask them to quit making paper products? I don't think so... there will be blood.
SmoothBurn 3 years ago
And he also says that he doesn't know what the right course of action is for stopping Weyerhaeuser, or he would have done it already.
Bears are less dangerous in part BECAUSE there are fewer of them. If bear numbers were allowed to return to their previous numbers, though, even then there wouldn't be enough hikers for them to entail more risk than a leisurely drive.
(cont.)
Number3Pencils 3 years ago
As a matter of interest, I'm a primitivist as well, and I know a thing or two about the movement's tenets. Tools are not derided; rather, tool-making is considered an essential skill. Even fairly complex machines wouldn't be too bad a thing, if they could be run without a society behind them - but most of them couldn't. A TV, for example, requires metals mined in all different parts of the world, glass and plastic made in factories, and assembly probably in China. (cont.)
Number3Pencils 3 years ago
Also, if you want to include people killed by all animals (your aim in that, I suppose, is to figure out the risk of living in the wilderness), you also should include on the other side the number of people killed by civilization. That would run the number into the millions, when you figure in chemical poisoning, government-on-citizen violence, car crashes, war, and (if you're feeling inclusive) all the years of life that people burn doing work they don't want to do.
Number3Pencils 3 years ago
If you wanted to go and include all of those things, then you would ~again~ be comparing apples to oranges because you'd have to include all of the direct and indirect ways that nature kills people, which are vast. Let's consider all people killed by weather, starvation set on by natural causees, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, all of the worlds diseases. (we'd die by the common cold if we didn't have medicine). Apples and oranges, my friend... apples and oranges.
SmoothBurn 3 years ago
Civilization and domestication has made us dependent on "such" medicine. As for me, I didnt take any pills for 10 years now - and I´m doing fine!
wafpress 3 years ago
I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like you may be a primitivist (of some variety) as well. Either that, or I'm mistaken, and by "barking up the wrong tree" you mean I'm a hopeless case. Sounds like we mostly have common ground. Our discussion leads to considering the standard of living for each of these styles of living. And, the few marginalized hunter-gatherer tribes in the world (as far as I've heard) all report pretty great lives, except when civilization interferes.
Number3Pencils 3 years ago 2
Also, I seldom take medicine, and I haven't yet died from a disease. The common cold would not kill you without medicine. This is a fact, because I've beaten it numerous times with no medicine, and you have too probably.
Moreover, a great number of diseases are made possible only by civ., and the dense gatherings and very thorough blending it entails. Civ. also exacerbates natural disasters, because a house is a bigger and weaker target than a person (for an earthquake, hurricane, etc.).
Number3Pencils 3 years ago
And finally, as for starvation, it's actually civilization affected harder, because we rely on monocrops that the weather can easily interfere with. Hunter-gatherers just eat whatever is around, and even in the Kalahari, there's always something around. Jared Diamond quoted a Bushman saying, "Why should we [plant crops like civilized societies] when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?" These Bushmen societies work about five hours a day and the rest is leisure.
Number3Pencils 3 years ago
Oh well you're a primitivist? Then I am clearly barking up the wrong tree.
SmoothBurn 3 years ago
What do you mean! If you sabotage a machine - wheres the blood? hmm?? Yes environmentalists are diying upon the bloody hands of people in power, defending their power.
wafpress 3 years ago
You totally avoided all of my questions, and concentrated on two irrelevant factors that have nothing to do with proving or disproving Derrick Jensen's credibility. Just because you are attempting to discredit me, does not mean that that gives Derrick Jensen credibility.
SmoothBurn 3 years ago
How many people walk through the woods? How many people drive cars? Ah, this is a classic trick in statistics. He isn't talking percentages, he's just talking straight numbers. How many cars are there in america? Millions and millions. Why aren't people attacked in the woods? Because rangers keep the bears and other wildlife out of the woods near populated areas. This guy is too smart for you people. Go live with the bears for a while... and when they get hungry?
SmoothBurn 3 years ago
Let's crunch the numbers: in order for walking in the woods to be more dangerous than driving, there have to be (46000*2=)92000 times more drivers than hikers every year in America. There are 175 000 000 licensed drivers in the US. That means there must be at most 1 902 hikers in the US. And that's not even close to true. Even if you only count the ones who go hiking in really deep woods where bears might get at them.
Number3Pencils 3 years ago
The occurence of bears in wilderness is extremely rare, so of course there would be less chance of a bear killing. What about all animal killings v.s. car accidents. It surely does NOT mean that there must be at most 1902 hikers in the US. If there were as many bears as cars in populated areas, there would be quite a few more bear attacks, no? Bear populations are controlled. THIS is what keeps the death toll low. What about ALL animal attacks? All animal attacks given equal population?
SmoothBurn 3 years ago
What I am saying is that he's comparing apples and oranges. The argument he gives does not support the rest of his speech, but is rather irrelevant.
SmoothBurn 3 years ago
bears in trailed areas that contact humans is what I really ment, just in case anyone wanted to split hairs.
SmoothBurn 3 years ago
see, humans don´t give bears and other beings the place they need. Humans are getting everywhere...and do not respect the individuality of other creatures. So your answers are really antropocentric.
Here in slovakia, there was ZERO kills by bears in 100 years. Some attacs occured, but only to hunters and loggers, who didn´t respect anything what a bear means! And also people make bears attracted to uncaged garbage in forested areas and unprotected domesticated animals, so whos fault is it?
wafpress 3 years ago
Bears are bears! If they see you as a threat(danger) they will defend themselves. But people attack other being(and other people) not also as selfdefense, but ...offense, sport, idiocy..
wafpress 3 years ago
I love this guy. Thanks for posting this...it made my night! Respect!
ItsFilthy 4 years ago 5
it's great that you're subtitling these...nice work
pennilesscripple 4 years ago 5