/lit/ - Literature

>>15546583
I've read the whole top row and silent spring.
You should add Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

>>15546583
Which of these will simply depress me?

>>15546953

None - ecology is necessarily bloomer core.

>>15546583
>walden is there
>not linkola
gay and retarded. thoreau is a poser faggot and has far less substance than anyone in that list.

>>15547006
Eco-pessimism is a thing: Ellul, Caraco, Linkola, Kaczynski.
>>15547022
Based.

0/12 but I am intrigued, thanks

>>15547006
how is that a problem?

>>15547006
It sure is, unless by 'ecology' you mean the science of ecology, which is undeniably doomer, start reading the scientific literature, or worse doing ecology field work and seeing the field obliterated, especially if it's from habitat destruction. Still you find that actual research ecologists are still usually bloomers. less usually for tropical ecologists, and marine ecologists are really not doing well at all, but being in the ocean helps.
Maybe Ecclesiastes is for ecologists.

>>15546583
No Gary Snyder?

>>15546583
"Ecophilosophy" is how we got where we are now. Ecofacism is the future.

>>15548434
These depress me so profoundly, I hate reading these books because they just make me feel angry and powerless. I know nature isn't rainbows and gumdrops but it doesn't deserve this.

>>15548484
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

The day of reckoning will happen soon.

>>15548484
nature shouldn't be reified.

>>15548434
>Richard Walther Darré
I’m related to him

>>15548502
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
Holy shit:
>Conclusions
> After reviewing their computer simulations, the research team came to the following conclusions:[1]:23–24
>
> - Given business as usual, i.e., no changes to historical growth trends, the limits to growth on earth would become evident by 2072, leading to "sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity". This includes the following:
> - Global Industrial output per capita reaches a peak around 2008, followed by a rapid decline
> - Global Food per capita reaches a peak around 2020, followed by a rapid decline
> - Global Services per capita reaches a peak around 2020, followed by a rapid decline
> - Global population reaches a peak in 2030, followed by a rapid decline

So, economic collapse of 2008, and this economic shutdown (now that BLM protests have proven corona shutdown to be a confirmed hoax) was actually about food shortages, will 2030 be the global population max?

>>15548524
I know, it's just actuality, out there, beyond the cities, nothing else to say about it, but still.

>>15548502
praise jesus.

>>15546583
tried reading my first summer in the sierra but just got bored with it hope to get into ecophilosophy sometime again

>>15548586
I don't think the virus was a hoax per se, just that something would inevitably come along right around now to tip things off and cause a panic. What it did prove is that the vast majority of westerners are superfluous, just pushing papers around and leeching off the production of a small few. We don't manufacture anymore, our entire economy is based on extracting value from foreigners and then bouncing that money back and forth in the service sector. 90% of us can stop doing our jobs and nothing really happens.

>>15548586
The principle of excessive action - in the face of impotence, people scramble to do as much frantic activity as they can, even if none of it has any effect and they know it.
Economists are the only people on earth retarded enough to think exponential growth can go on in a finite space forever.

>>15546900
It's already on this one

>>15548434
there is books enough for everyone who wanna branch out

>>15548586
Don't be a pseud and just stop at the fucking conclusions, read the criticism and updates as well.

>>15547510

I didn't mean to say it was a problem, sorry if my tone was aggressive

>>15547788

I suppose if you are talking about practical ecology yes you are right, it's pretty doomer now more than ever - but that's because of industrial human actions which are counter-ecological. I was thinking more about the idea of ecology as a method of developing a new social ontology (i.e non-hierarchical, egalitarian, univocal)

>>15548874
>Economists are the only people on earth retarded enough to think exponential growth can go on in a finite space forever.

It's the folly of worshiping GDP.

>>15547022
>poser
Only if you hold the of popular conception of him. Instead of judging him by his own words.

I need to reread Walden desu, maybe now that I'm older and wiser I won't feel like Thoreau is just being a pretentious larper

Does anyone have a chart for regular ecology?
If I want to get in to deep ecology or ecophilosophy, I would need to know about regular ecology first, right?

>>15548897
Chad Haag is a chad.

>>15549341

"Practical ecology"? I assume you mean using our understanding of ecology to achieve ends beyond that understanding, or, excuse my harshness, you mean nothing. From that, "the idea of ecology as a method of developing a new social ontology" is, depending on how ecological that actually is, clearly more deserving of the category 'practical ecology' along with common applied ecology like restoration and conservation. And not the science of eco-logy, the science of life at HOME, a purely useless science in practice that only seeks to understand the reality of our living home. Bringing ecology into philosophy is of upmost importance, not in order to 'build a new social ontology', but because philosophy demands it. Anything less would be philosophical incompetence. Anything more ''building a new social ontology'', or etc. would not be philosophy at all, but sophistry, even if it's claimed to be a political philosophy(which is, or should be, just as useless as the rest of philosophy). And if it's humble enough not to go by philosophy, it is still a frivolous waste of time for any scientific person, which isn't a bad thing to be, but not very practical, so I avoid it.
I wish I could get into this, I'd like to talk about how science and ecological theories, social or otherwise. cannot be divorced. I have more to say, but I'm cooled off now and I gotta get outside. I point to 'the architecture of theories' from Peirce(which in itself has an unrealized metaphysical ecological character beyond what I am pointing to) to explain why. Peirce really helped me understand that more among scientists deserve to be called philosophers than you can find in the people who call themselves 'philosopher'. Most of philosophy seems frivolous after Peirce. I like you, and don't mean to disparage you, but I can't help but be rude. I want to accomplish the same practical things you do, it's just that we will never find our way home if we don't know where home is.
It's a cup of glee for a gallon of grief in ecology. More than worth it.

https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/arch/arch.htm

Can someone rec some deep ecology groups to join for actual activism?

>>15551113
Read Chad Haag books.

>>15546583
I've only read walden, but I just ordered muir and session's books because of this chart. Thanks for the readings!