FRR: Opinions on Conservation and Polyculture

I've been back and forth with those two on the radio show on lots of things. Their affinity for egoism is pretty perplexing, I am not sure why JZ doesn't call them on it. Probably doesn't want to form a circular firing squad. The only thought on the second point is that 1491 book pointing out that slash and burn was a product of the encounter with Europeans. Not sure if I am remembering that right or if that is accurate.

My experience is pretty similar to northernfrosbites. The only reasoning I have any interest in permculture or forest gardens is i'd rather do that than buy from a store. It's really important to constantly remember that despite the praise it gets it still follows the same logic of domination and domestication. I don't think it's possible to do agriculture without being affected by this mindset. Seems like a good way to go an extra step in the right direction is to make sure your design has as many native and wild edibles as possible and that you don't get in the way of them if they're already there.

Haha, I used to wonder a lot about the effectiveness and ethics of guerilla wild edible planting around cities, or anywhere really... easy growing things like lambs quarter. Probably a huge waste of time to do, but it was fun to think about.

"it would be nice to hear or read the Wildernist's explanation of why they use this word to explain themselves."

Hey Wombat. Here is a list of the reasons:

1. We are not anarchists and do not want to be considered part of the anarchist movement. And many anarchists hate conservation or dislike enough that they wont want to associate with a group that uses that label.

2. I and some others (but not all, to be clear) in The Wildernist's team and network would be conservationists in the truest since of the word if we did not believe in revolution. That is, if I did not believe in revolution, I would take a similar stance as the early Earth First!ers, trying to preserve as much wilderness as possible with the hope that civilization will collapse before it's all destroyed. In trying to open up our audience to the "lowest common denominator" (obv. not the best term), using "conservation" attracts those people who have similar starting points.

3. You have people like Dave Foreman and others with a wilderness ethic within the conservation movement already, and while we have strong criticisms for some of these things, they present themselves as allies. We ultimately want the same thing: more wildness, more wilderness.

4. It associates us with the audience of people who we are working with. If we call ourselves "anarcho-primitivists," we are asking for collaboration with people who have shown themselves attracted to that movement, with anarchists, people obsessed with sabotage, leftists, etc. If we call ourselves "conservationists," we are much more likely to attract a different kind of person, but a person who more likely than not cares deeply FOR THE WILD --- not sabotage, getting their rocks off with calling people out, not people who simply want to engage in some lifestyle project, etc, etc.

5. Lastly, we very much come from a conservation / wilderness ethic. More wildness, more wilderness. The underlying ethic is the same. It's the analysis that's different. We, along with many others in the conservation movement with a wilderness ethic, do not see the whole "defense" position making a lot of meaningful strides. Industry inevitably encroaches. This means that the only way to continue on with the conservation ethic is to turn to an "offense" strategy, to end industry. And this is only possible (according to historical precedent) through revolution, which means that we have to show how revolutionary conditions might be created (autonomously of humans, since we don't have the power to create revolutionary conditions) in the coming years, providing us (those who love wildness) an opportunity to end the industrial mode of production *in a meaningful way.*

That last bit is pretty important. As someone pointed out in another thread, people don't just start with the rejection of civilization. So you have to find their starting point. The only reason anarchism is important to interact with is because that is, by and large, the starting point of the alienated, who are important parts of revolutions. But where you're going to get the people who really and deeply care for the wild and have the kind of mentality that motivates them to do something about it --- you're going to find those people in conservation.

And for those, like Zerzan, who have suggested that conservationists aren't a population of people willing to take risks, I would simply reply with the history of Earth First!, and the fact that in revolutionary situations, most people involved wouldn't normally be doing things they do. They get swept in and overtaken by a sense of purpose to jolt them out of their lethargy.

I hope this answered your question. It was a bit scattered since I'm on a time-crunch. Tell me if you need any clarifications.

The points you make in the above posts are nonsense. You are on an anarchist board telling people that you identify with conservationism because it alienates anarchists. This apparently is you primary reason! You also claim that you want a revolutionary base to come out of "lowest common denominator" (read liberal) people who associate with conservation. So you want to alienate anarchists so you can appeal to liberals so you can build a revolutionary struggle?

Your historical precedent for a revolutionary struggle that destroys industrialism should be fun, lets hear it?

Then you throw Dave Foreman out there as a good example. sigh...

More wildness more wilderness is not simply a difference in analysis, we are talking about two different things. Are areas considered wilderness also often wild place? Yes. But the concept of wilderness displaces the wildness all around us, in our walls, in US. Wilderness is the place you go visit. Wilderness only exists in a civilized framework. So saying they simply equal each other and that conservation can "save" wildness doesn't acknowledge the reality of domestication or civilization, it makes wildness something that can be "saved" with enough acreage which is simply not possible.

I'm still completely unclear as to why conservationism is a point of identification. You have some similarities? Well yea, of course. Plenty of conservationists enjoy learning about the wild and can be great people. But your framework here is obviously about building appeal, which is so political it is nauseating, but let us just take that as your obvious point. The contradictions in here swell beyond control.

Just curious, have you spent much time around other self-described "revolutionaries"? Your analysis seems incongruous to any reasonable account of lived experience. Perhaps it is not, but I'd doubt it

The above reply was just to answer Wombat's question, not really to debate them (there's a time for that, but not here, and not with someone so obviously hostile).

And the order of the reasons had nothing to do with their importance.