Iterations on Environment, Memory, and Consciousness in an Age of Accelerated Human Information Interaction
Personally, I found this video long and boring, To watch someone sit there and talk about the environment, isn't my idea of interesting. However, all of his points seemed like good ones and made it seem like he put some thought into coming up with them. I just feel like there could have been a better way to keep the listener interested throughout the video.
I liked Jenson’s incorporation of the “original” Star Wars script into the beginning of the video. This humorous introduction allows Jenson to present the current relationship between powerful and wealthy corporations and environmental activists. In order for the rebel activists to overcome the Empire, they truly do need “The Force.” Jenson’s “how many environmentalists does it take to change a light bulb?” reveals a sad reality in which only a fraction of activists “light bulb smasher” are making a difference. The majority of activists are trying, but due to their “nice guy” approach, their efforts are in vain.I thought Jenson presented the nine premises of his new book, Endgame well and that the order in which Jenson arranged them was appropriate. I agree with each premise and feel they address major problems that need to be identified and addressed by humanity. I would like to briefly comment on a few of the premises and state which aspects I enjoyed the most.• Civilization is not and can never be sustainable: The depletion of resources from the surrounding land and the importance of violence as an essential element in acquiring resources, are in part due to humanities inability to buy into the fundamental predator/prey relationship in which a predator becomes responsible for the continuation of the species which it preys upon.• Industrial civilization requires and would collapse without persistent and wide spread violence: I found Jenson’s explanation of how violence is present in society through the requirements of paying for food and rent and the “violent” consequences that result if one “steps out of line” to be interesting. Jenson’s statement that the majority of people are “so metabolized into the system and accept the premises of the system,” that people “stand straight in line” really hit home with me. I now realize the extent to which I am ingrained into the system.• Modern civilization is based on a clearly defined, widely accepted and unarticulated hierarchy in which violence is accepted from the top down: Jenson’s example of describing the ratio of sharks killed by humans versus the ratio of humans killed by sharks being “around 20 million to one” caught my attention and demonstrates how humans are real the “murderers” as opposed to “fearsome man eating fish.”• In premises six, seven, eight and nine, Jenson is delivering a clear and simple message that the majority of society cannot recognize. Modern civilization will collapse one way or another unless changes are made to create a sustainable culture. The longer humanity remains ignorant of the growing emergency, the more devastating the crash of civilization will be (example: 2008 housing market crash, which is nothing compared to this looming disaster). The state of the natural environment, which provides basic necessities of life, is more important than any economic system which is nothing more than a creation of modern civilization. I agree with Jenson’s believe that over consumption and wiser family planning are the major problems that result from the surplus human population. However, I feel that a greater emphasis should be placed on the human population.Overall, I wish Jenson would have got up and moved around a little. By sitting in the same position, Jenson makes himself less engaging to his audience. I also believe the “sexual relationships” analogy Jenson uses to describe the unbalanced social hierarchy was inappropriate. Jenson could have got his point across without having to use this analogy. Otherwise, I liked the video and I agree with Jenson based on my belief that humanity, especially those with power, has a tendency to be greedy, selfish and willing to bring harm upon others and the environment for personal benefit. The creation of the social class hierarchy allows the upper class to keep the lower classes preoccupied with following the rules of the hierarchy. Therefore, the destruction of this unfair hierarchy is necessary to bring about real change for humanity and the environment.
Mary EskandariEnglish 101I liked how Derrick approached serious topics with humor to make his points sound more accessible and less like a lecture. He did make some very good points during the video. I thought it was interesting what he said about how you can't be sustainable with importing resources and it will just lead to violence because he is right about that. I never really thought about how importing resources could leads to violence like the way he described it and it makes sense why people are pushing buying locally so much now. I also agree with the statement that it's the consumers responsibility to continue the resource's community when using a resource. I didn't like how he ranted about off topic subjects a lot throughout the video but overall he did make some good points.
THINK: After the first ten minutes I was confused as to what he was even talking about. I did not clearly understand the metaphor he was trying to make with Star Wars. I thought that everything he had to say was interesting and his point of view on things made me start to think more in depth about how much we consume and do not put back. However I cannot imagine why anyone would chose to sit and listen to him talk for almost an hour. He is lecturing on how we are broken as a world, but he is not giving any solutions. LIKE: I liked when he said, “hope bashing” because people sometimes need to be told that all their hopes and dreams are not going to come true. I also really liked how he put a twist on the survival of the fittest. How it is not about taking as many resources as you can and using them all, it is adapting to your environment. DISLIKE: I did not like how monotone he was, it was hard to be enthusiastic about what he was saying. I do not like the way he degraded how police have big funerals. Most cops that die on the job have nice funerals and they parade the streets to pay respect. I thought that was very rude to degrade the work that police do for our country. I also disagree with how he said that we are going to be destroyed to then again be built back up. I think that we need to stop ourselves from destroying the world so it is here for a very long time. GOOD POINTS: When he was talking about an apocalypse and he kept listing off all the possible things that could go wrong in the world. All of the different things that could go wrong and lead to the end the world. Saying that any way life that depends on nonrenewable resources will eventually run out, and how people turn a blind eye to that. “Eventually there will be none.” “If you see another as a resource you’re going to use them.” I like the point he made about how people higher up in society get away with more injustices than people lower in society. It is very true and a problem that we do not often address.FEELINGS: I feel like the world is going to undergo a voluntary change. We aren’t going to realize it at the time, but five or ten years later we are going to look back and realize how different things are. I feel like his premises are true, however he had a rude way of presenting them. He did not really care what he said, or if it would offend anyone.
T’ana TomlinsonEng 101-105Thoughts: As the video went on, I began to actually understand Jensen’s points. During the first 5 to 10 minutes I was very much confused on why Jensen was talking about Star Wars and Darth Vader. Especially since I had not seen the movie/s and had no intentions on seeing it. I went on to finally realizing and grasping his key concepts and his actual outlook on the way society is. He made a lot of sense to the problems but did not give any solutions. Like: I liked how Jensen gave a different approach than many other advocates who have something to say about where the environment is going and what needs to be done now before we experience a damaging world. He gave a more humorous approach while still sticking to the facts and issues. Sometimes being humorous is a way to get people to listen to what you have to say. One could say he wasn’t being serious but I find giving some comedic input helps to keep peoples’ attention. I liked the way he gave examples for his different premises. He actually made sense in his points.Dislikes: The beginning was extremely boring and very confusing. He did not like how he talked about cop funerals but he made a point about how police funerals are more extravagant then the ones who are not on the force. I also did not like the homosexual lieutenant private joke. I did not understand it at all. Good Points: The point he made about immigration was a good one. I don’t have a problem with immigrants coming over to a place where there are more opportunities. But if you want to create a wall to decrease their access to our country, the same should be made for us trying to go over there. We as a country see ourselves first. Jensen made a good point when talking about nonrenewable resources. I feel American citizens are continuously in denial about the problems we have concerning resources we need to survive. We should limit our resources but we are so selfish we wouldn’t do it.Feelings: Enough is never enough for us and we always have to go above and beyond. Competition can actually do more harm than good; especially when it comes to protecting ourselves from devastation that can very much be prevented. Throughout time we’ve always had to be the dominant force and that hasn’t put us in a very good predicament.
Walker SheltonI only found one part of this video that I like. The comment Jensen made about treating a tree or a fish as a dollar sign instead of a living plant or animal. I believe people are not going to change the way they abuse the environment if it damages their wallet. I really dislike how monotone Jensen is. Also, I do not like how Jensen acts superior to his audience. He either should do a stand up show or talk about the environment seriously.
Derrick Jensen was the first environmentalist that I actually enjoyed listening to. I enjoyed listening because he is a realist and knows that we have a problem that can only be solved by a complete change in the human mentality. No amount of “hope and peace” can bring back the dwindling salmon populations or restore the last of the fossils fuels that we have left.I really liked how he examined the difference between sustainable and non-sustainable cultures. Sustainable cultures are populations that actually make the habitat that they live in better than how it was before they were there. This is in comparison to our culture that relies heavily on the importation of resources, especially those that aren’t renewable. He seems like he has been able to remove himself from our consumerist society as much as possible while still being able to be and author and publish books. I believe this allows him to look at our society from a perspective that isn’t biased towards wants and desires. This is in stark contrast to most of America who would cringe at the idea of moving to a more sustainable culture, one like those native to North America prior to the eastern interference. As much as I would like to think that I could move to a more sustainable culture like the ones he references, I, like most of America, have become too accustomed to industrialized civilization and would have a nearly impossible time acclimating.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Jensen and unfortunately agree with the points he made. The majority of the principles laid forth was easy to swallow and made perfect sense; although others were not so easy for me to agree with. The beginning of the video, in which Jensen read his “Star Wars” script and hypothetically spoke of an “apocalypse” outlined the problems we face today. What he said about the violence in civilization and the role of the military did not go over well with me, but after closely examining his point I still have to agree. I agree with all the principles presented by Jensen in his talk. However, these principles prove one thing, which Jensen made very clear. Despite the facts, civilization will continue to do the same things we do until there is a catastrophic event that changes our lives. The only question is how long from now will it happen and how much more damage will occur in that time. The majority of his principles made logical sense and were easy to agree with. Jensen first bashes the methods society uses today for environmental change and outlines the issues we have today, to put things in perspective. He then delves into his list of principles, all of which I agree with. Most of them I immediately agreed with. Principles such as our dependence on imported resources, industrial activity and nonrenewable creating non-sustainable civilizations could not be truer. He proves this by providing examples of cultures that have survived thousands of years. These cultures survive because they lived off what the land provided for them, while replenishing those resources so they continued to have them. Modern civilizations simply do not do this. You can clearly see this today in America as we continue to expand. What happens when the world runs out of oil to fuel our national machine or the countries we import them from stop providing these resources. The answer is simple, we go to war. This is outlined in Jensen’s third principle that civilization would collapse without violence.
The point Jensen makes regarding violence in society is true ,but also very hypocritical. Our society is rooted in violence and we do become immune to it because its everyday life but I believe it is necessary. In reality people will not leave their houses unless taken away by a sheriff in many cases. I would much rather have law and order than have unrestricted crime. Sure, in Jensen’s idea of society police would not be necessary, but we live in reality. Jensen also bashed the military which sent up a huge red flag for me. He used his principle of violence flowing downward to degrade the honor of military service, which for me resulted in a huge loss or respect for him. Of course the military is a violent organization but by no means should it be abolished. We are often used as pawns by the national government to help obtain resources we need such as in Iraq and Libya, but these decisions are made by people we do not see. The average Soldier, Sailor, Marine and Airman serves to protect his country. With protecting your country comes defending your country, hence the Department of Defense. Jensen wouldn’t be saying the same thing if we faced a full scale invasion by another country that was to bring full scale garrisons and pillaging of the land. He’d certainly agree with having a military then. Despite my negative views on this principle, I have to agree with most of it. As I said we are often used as pawns to carry out the agenda of politicians and other government officials and many times we are in other countries to protect or obtain natural resources we require.In the end, Jensen’s principles all lead to once conclusion. Something has to be done starting now. How and when it occurs, and what kind of catastrophic event will happen? No one knows. Personally I think one major civilization will eventually crash due to un-sustainability. Because of the global economies interdependence on other countries, there will be a systematic crash of other civilizations. When this will occur? I have no idea, but I do know that humans will do anything in their power to keep it from happening. This could include violence, especially in the form of nuclear warfare, which Jensen outlines as another possible cause of the crash. Lastly, how long will it take before it happens and what damage will be done to nature at this point? What species will be gone? What major natural cycles and systems will no longer exist? This all depends on when and if we ever make a voluntary change. I agree with Jensen in regards to the fact that I would love to see a voluntary change by everyone to a civilization. A change in which the “needs of the natural world are more important than that of the economic system”. But, in all reality this will never happen. Jensen states we will be judged by the land base we leave for future generations. In the end I believe the sustainable land base we leave behind will be extremely poor, if it exists at all. Sadly, even Jensen admits a change will not be made until a catastrophic crash of modern civilization occurs. The only questions are when it will occur, what irreversible damage will be done to nature by the time.
Overall I enjoyed watching the video. The video was entertaining enough that I was able to watch it in one sitting. I appreciated the fact that Derrick Jensen was trying to be comedic and I thought that is monotone voice added more to the hilarity since it sounded like he was downplaying serious material. Also I like how Jensen would say “thank you” after the crowd would applaud, but he sounded so insincere. I did not like the part where he talked about Star Wars being written first by environmentalists. I understood that he was teasing environmentalist, but it seem to go on for too long. The point he made about the F word and the object of a sentence was good because it was the truth. Once you begin to see or use something as an object you will continuously view it the same way subconsciously. Throughout the video I did not like how he portrayed the police as being bad people. There are good police officers and bad police officers as there are good people and bad people. Most police officers are just trying to do their job, get a paycheck, provide for their family, and not get injured while in harm’s way.
In my opinion Derrick Jensen does make things funny, but his points are horrible. One of the big points that he expresses has to do with resources and how we should not be suing them, but rather living of the land and giving back as much as we take. I believe this is something that would not work for humans or any other animal that has ever lived. It is human nature to be greedy and to do anything when it is truly necessary. If someone's life depends on one piece of bread they would not give it to someone else, but rather take it for themselves. This also goes with how humans are naturally greedy and also jealous. Those who are greedy will do something bad to have more than others, even in the most simple societies. Having more than others will cause jealousy and eventually lead to violence. Derrick Jensen believes that violence is caused by civilizations and resources when in reality it is human nature and if you put anyone in the right situation violence will occur. Derrick Jensen's points and views show similarities of communism and utopian societies which based on history will never work, once again, because it is a human's natural behavior to be greedy and jealous and it is something that will never go away.
I thought that this video was incredibly boring. I liked all of this points and I liked how he compared it to Star Wars. I am not actually a fan of Star Wars but I thought it gave the lecture a twist and was sort of funny. I did not like how expressionless he was because it made it hard to watch and pay attention to. I like the point he made when he was talking about how he did not like to use the work apocalyptic and then he talked about how his friends would ask him if he was going to wait until the death of passenger pigeons was so big that they would cover the sky or wait until there was a hole in the ozone. Overall I feel like Derrick Jensen makes good points during his lecture but I think he should liven up a bit.
Kyle SimpsonI did not like this video and I had a lot of trouble watching it. There were a few occasional funny parts, but most of it was boring and the points he brought up were terrible. On top of that, beginning with that star wars thing was terrible. It was one of the most boring, as well as stupid, things I have ever heard. It was a bad way to begin in my opinion because I had already lost interest quite early. Most of his ideas were so radical that I just found them stupid. A couple of examples, he says that the only way humans can live a sustainable life is to live how we did during the stone age. That is one of the worst claims I have ever heard in my life. Through the use of technology, humans can rely less and less on nature creating a very sustainable environment. The point that probably pissed me off the most though was when he talked about the violence, specifically ripping on police officers. Police officers are paid to protect the people and that is what they do. Anytime a police officer kills someone its because there own life was in danger or that person was putting another life in danger. A cop will never just kill for fun, to take money from people, to steal a car, or to get into some stupid gang. If this idiot wants to rip on anyone for killing it should be those type of people. Not people who are protecting innocent lives. It also angered me when he talks about how you get evicted for not paying rent or you get in trouble for walking into a grocery store and just start eating food. Of course you're going to get in trouble for that, you are stealing stuff that isn't yours. In my opinion most of his points were quite stupid and would only seem logical from the viewpoint of a radical.
Savannah Morgan I found this video not only boring and stupid but also offensive. Derrick Jensen talks poorly about the military, these are the people that have fought for America and sacrificed their lives, and is the reason we can live so freely. While I agree violence is not a good thing, it is sometimes necessary. I also disliked his point that our civilization is headed to another stone age and that is where sustainability can be achieved. I believe that we will develop many technological advances that will help us advance and still develop sustainability on Earth. The only point he made that I liked is that the way we view things is the way we treat them, if we view a tree as money we will use the tree only for money. I honestly did not find that he made any good points.
Likes: I liked his fact that when we consume something, we take responsibility for the continuation of that object. However, I don't think people think about that point of view because of the current problems with trying to keep our resources sustainable. I also liked how he pointed out the "subject, verb, object" idea because he noted how women are usually always defined as the object. I disagree that women should be referred to as objects, but I thought it was interesting that he was a male and can recognize that. Finally, I liked his eighth premise that the natural world is more important than the economic world. It was funny how he said he would not become the president because he felt that way; that truly shows the government's priorities...Dislikes: I didn't like how scattered he was! One second he would be talking about one thing, and the next he would jump to something completely random, only to return to the first subject later. It was confusing. I also thought he seemed arrogant, which is one of my biggest pet-peeves, but the crowd seemed to enjoy him.Thoughts: Overall, I disliked more of his premises than I liked. I feel like he repeated a lot of the same things in different premises. Some of his points were good, though. I think there is a fine line between a realist and a pessimist, but he seemed very negative about the future of our planet. In a way, he crushed a lot of my hopes. I believe he could have found a less radical and offensive way of getting his points across.
Suath Penagos Derek Jensen seemed to get off topic way too easily. To me it seemed like he was babbling a lot of the time and then finally got to the point. He did have some good points to make, for example one was that we should take care of the land base because that is how we will be remembered. If there is no clean air to breathe nothing else seems to matter. I also agree with the last remark he said about keeping immigrants out, because if you try to cut off central and south America completely then you should be ready for cutting off all resources as well. The government should measure the consequences before taking action. Although there were a couple of good points, he seemed a bit conceited and sarcastic. It seemed like he didn’t see any hope for the future. I also disliked the beginning analogy with star wars; I was somewhat confused with it. He did mention how nonrenewable resources would not keep a civilization going which makes sense yet a lot of people believe that we can keep our population sustainable. Overall, there were good premises but he got off topic too much to keep the focus on the issues discussed.
I like how he uses common sense to get his message across. I also like how he uses metaphors like Star Wars so we can relate what is going on with something we are familiar with. I liked when he told the part about the environmental Star Wars that as some of the rebels thought to pick up weapons and fight back they said, “to change Darth Vader we must first change ourselves.” I understand that Darth Vader is a bad guy and thinking about to receive compassion we must give it makes me think about the point that Postel made in the Water article that some of the reasons that the weather has become so bad and extreme is because of what we have done to the earth. When I heard the light bulb question I thought the answer would be none. True environmentalists shouldn’t use light bulbs at all and if they do then they should be solar powered and those never need to be changed.Next he talks about voluntary transformations of the earth and how that will never occur. I agree with him. No one is going to voluntarily use a candle instead of a light bulb. No one is going to voluntarily do anything to help the earth if it isn’t convenient for him or her at the time or if they don’t get direct benefit from it. No one doesn’t water the grass if it needs watering because they think it’s just the circle of life, or they like a brown lawn, until restrictions are set. So laws have to be made if we want results. When he talked about the premises of his book I found myself agreeing with all of them and they all seemed to be so truthful. I like that he gives a more realistic view of what is happening to the earth. One premise that really stood out was that the natural needs are greater than economic needs. I think we won’t be able to change anything about the earth until we realize that. But the main problem is the longer we wait for a change then the worse the crash will be at the end. I am not extremely familiar with Star Wars and even though he tried to describe what happens I am not really sure what he was saying and I don’t feel like I got many of his Star Wars related points. It was also upsetting that his jokes where a little spacey to me. I don’t agree with him saying that GLBT community should not be allowed in the military. If they want to fight for the country then let them. He also didn’t even get a reason for him thinking that. Other Points: Only the Stone Age is sustainable, but what will be left when we get there? You survive in the long run by making your habitat better.If you see something as a resource then you will look at it differently than what it actually is. Violence is exported.
Lesley Winchester says,At first I found it difficult to follow Mr. Jensen's thought process or even what his overall points were supposed to be. He seemed to go off focus and talk about star wars, and undercover feds, and then water in plastic. However, later as he begins to go into the many premises of his book, I began to understand his bizarre rants. Overal, I would say that I enjoyed listening to him speak, it was slightly long winded, but each premise was followed by an interesting story that made me giggle, to make the time not feel quite as long. I would say that a point that I disliked would be his point on how, "the stone age is the only thing sustainable" however I do believe that it might be a good point. Also his point about 9/11, that could be seen a controversial but it is uncomforatably accurate, as he brings up the point of disrupting the hierarchy. I did like several of his points, like women being objects, "man fucks woman, subject, verb, object" I felt this was an accurate statement. Unfortunate, however, accurate. Also, how he said the usage of toilet paper makes him copable to deforestation. Also, a scary point he brings up was that we as a population will only be judged by the land wealth that we pass on, because in the end, "it doesnt matter if you cant breathe the air or drink water."
Thoughts and Feelings: I really felt like this video was pointlessly long. I tried to maintain an interest in it; but after a while I found myself tuning it out. I basically understood his introduction with Starwars, but at other points I felt completely lost. I just couldn’t take too much of the video at one time. I find him slightly condescending and with a holier-than-thou attitude. Like: I like his point about giving back to the land (though I do feel it’s a bit unrealistic). He is completely right about the objectifying of women in today’s culture as well. It is good to know that other people are noticing this in society as well. Dislike: I completely did not like his disrespectful attitude towards the “feds” and military. It did not sit well with me- especially his portrayal of police officers as bad. Also, his monotonous attitude was incredibly boring. I also disliked his point that he made, that said that only the stone age is sustainable. There has to be a way for humanity to balance out Good Points: I liked his point as seeing objects only by the sum of its parts. That is how society is today, everything can be objectified in terms of how much profit can be made from it.
Laurin BrownEnglish 101This video first drew me in with the star wars story. His sarcastic tone added more to the story which actually caused me to laugh. However, after this section, the video begins to go downhill as the humor aspect decreases. He made good points in describing the multiple ways that environmentalists try to change our society. Some hold a view that they have to change themselves first before change can happen to the world. Others believe there can be no change without lawsuits. After a while, his voice begins to annoy me as my impression of him is that he is condescending. He continues on to discuss how our perception of something can affect our actions towards it. A good example was how a lumberjack sees dollar signs when he looks at a tree. The tree is then treated as a resource to make money. This was a interesting aspect that I had never thought about it. Another theory that made me think was how the world would collapse without violence. Initially, I disagreed with this statement until I heard his points. A person is motivated to pay their rent because if they don't someone will show up to kick them out. Violence also happens from top down. His army joke about different sexualities was a joke I didn't find very entertaining. Overall, the majority of his premises about sustainability and violence made good points and changed my thinking about different aspects of society.
What I think: Personally, it was a bit long for me and he jumped around in what he was saying too much. There were certain points at which I had no idea what he was talking about. However, for the most part, he made his points quite clear. I think that his ideas are too radical and at some points even terrible. Likes: This video was, for the most part, entertaining. I enjoyed his use of the star wars metaphor and find it to be pretty accurate. His use of comedy throughout his talk was funny. Other than that, I really didn’t like anything else. Dislikes: This guy has an obvious problem with authority. I did not enjoy the thought of his little experiment with the baseball bat. This whole idea of no civilization being able to live sustainably seems incorrect to me. I believe that civilization can change its ways; however, I do agree that a fast pace voluntary change is nowhere in the near future. Also, you cannot disprove natural selection, but one could say that it may have negative effects. Good Points: I disliked pretty much most of what he had to say. Yet, it would seem that his premise concerning the chain of command and violence might be somewhat accurate. I also believe that the human population needs to return to its carrying capacity, but would not go as far as to say that capitalism is the heart of the problem while population is not even a secondary problem.
As a whole, I actually enjoyed listening to Derrick Jensen’s talk. Even though some of my views do not completely concur with his, I think that he presented his points in an entertaining, straightforward, and factual manor.The humor and personal stories thrown into the talk definitely gave a more life-like view to some of his ideas on sustainability. I think that existing non-violently and still expecting to take other communities’ resources is an evident impracticality.Certain ideas such as completely bashing hope, Christianity, and men who protect our lives however I absolutely disagree with. I never felt totally offended still and was entranced listening to his viewpoints; yet I think that respect for certain people was absent.Overall, I think that the general idea is completely valid with great support. The main point which I retained is that the natural world is most important to care for because the future is based upon necessities of life. I feel like most people only see their small corner of the world and truly do just fall into a monotonous cycle instead of realizing and doing something to fix the problem. Obviously, we have to somehow overcome our different perspectives because we will forever be individuals and change our consuming ways. If not, future generations may not even exist to thank us.
Katherine BarrowsOverall Thoughts: I enjoyed how Jenson approached the extremely serious topics he discussed with a sense of humor. This helped him gain the attention of his audience and also assisted him in making some of his points more effectively. In addition I was happy to see that Jenson, unlike many environmentalists realizes that actions must be taken to improve our planet rather than trying to continue debates about what should be done. Dislikes: One thing I did not like about his speaking was how monotone he kept his voice. I feel that this made it more difficult for the audience to stay engaged. I do however realize that there were some times where the lack of emotion in his voice was used to help him make a point; but since he used this technique so liberally I’m sure there are some people who wouldn’t understand what he was trying to convey or when he was speaking sarcastically. Likes: I liked how realistic Jenson seemed to be about the future of our planet and what we can actually expect from people in response. The idea he explains about how as consumers we should take the responsibility of ensuring the continuation of the species from which we are benefiting is fantastic. I would love to see more people treating our resources with respect and showing appreciation for what they have been fortunate enough to be provided with.
I think that Derrick Jensen's video was much longer than it had to be. He made some good points but he could have condensed the material he covered and stayed on topic more.Likes: My favorite part of the video was the joke he made about how many environmentalists it took to change a lighbulb. I throughly agree with his point that many enviromentalists spend too much time writing petitions and other things to that extent. They never actually change things themselves or get other people to change. Just because they sit around and talk about what should be done, doesn't mean something will get done. Dislike: I thought it was throughly uneccessary to bring up the meaning of the word fuck and his other sexual references. He is supposed to be discussing the premises of his environmental book, not the crude references he was making. This part of the video should have been cut out because it makes Jensen seems less credible to be discussing the material he is covering. Good points: I liked the points he made about violence, but I don't exactly agree. I believe that you can control to some extent how much violence you have in your life and how violent you are towards other people.
LIKE: Jensen's use of humor to describe his concerns was entertaining. I also found him to be rather insightful even though i didn't agree with everything he said. I liked the was he defined civilization and cities as well. DISLIKE: I disliked all of his sarcasm. I found that this made him hard to follow. Even though he was funny at times and did make some good points, throughout the video i found it hard to keep interest. I also did not like his attitude towards authoritative figures. While the things he said may be true in some cases, overall he is painting authoritative figures in a bad light. I also felt that his cussing weakened his argument. Saying things like "f the feds" when you are trying to be persuasive detracts from what you are trying to sayGood Points: The point that he made that i could most identify with was when he talked about our consumption being a bigger problem than the population. He changed my perspective on this issue. I felt that humans needed to start to reduce the population to see major change, but population doesn't have to be an issue if we change how much we consume.
LIKE: -I like how Jensen portrayed the current situation of our society through his “original” draft of Star Wars. By using humor, Jensen was able to keep his audience entertained and informed. -I like Jensen’s point about individual point of views and how we view certain objects. He uses examples such as trees and women, explaining that we can perceive these items in different ways. The way we view objects determines how we will treat these objects. -I also like Jensen’s discussion of the word “fuck.” I like how he explains the different uses of the word, and how it can be confused. Also the “man fucks woman” statement shows the objectification of women and how men degrade women. Even further, I agree with Jensen’s view on the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. I thought it was funny, yet considerable to have different sects of the military based on one’s sexual orientation. -I like Jensen’s last comment about the border between America and Mexico. He is true in the way that if we close the wall to people, we also close the wall to resources and imports.DISLIKE: -I didn’t like how Jensen changed subjects so rapidly. Sometimes I was lost and did not know what he was talking about. Jensen did not explain everything in order for me to understand it completely. For instance, why is it that the Stone Age is the only level that is sustainable, and why is it that we will someday return to this age. -I don’t like Jensen’s statement about the necessity of violence; violence should not be necessary in order to be satisfied. I think that Jensen is extreme about giving back to the environment. I saw this when he explained culpability and the fact that we need to give back in powerful ways if we use toilet paper or eat salmon. -I don’t like Jensen’s bashing on cops. Police go through serious training and risk their lives in order to save others. Sometimes mistakes happen and innocent people die, but that cannot be used to put down the entire police field. GOOD POINTS: -“Who the hell is we”: I like this point because Jensen is saying that humans naturally think about just themselves, which is true yet shameful. -I disagree with Jensen’s point that we will return to the Stone Age. I do not think that our society is capable of going back to a lifestyle where complex technology and materialistic items do not exist. -I like Jensen’s point about the lives of those high on the hierarchy are more important than those lower. It is sad, but in our society it is often true. -Jensen’s talk about 9/11 is sad and unfortunate. He discusses the invisibility of those who die from debt repayment and cancer versus those who die in the terrorist attack.OVERALL, WHAT I THINK: Jensen left me wondering what will really happen to our society and our environment. Cultures may change and we may have to change our lifestyles, which could be scary and unpredictable. Humans naturally want to know what will happen and what to expect, but this is an issue that has no real answer and no accurate prediction. I think Jensen has great points and leaves his audience thinking about what risks we will take and how much we are going to let our environment decline before we change the way we are living. In the end, it doesn’t matter what race we are or how we voted, because nothing is going to matter if we don’t have air to breathe and water to live.
Think: Derrick Jensen is hilarious! I think that some of the ways he says environmentalists push for change, like petitions and law suits, seem like a good idea in real life but then again seem ridiculous when placed in a different situation, like how many environmentalists does it take to change a light bulb.I also thought his point about how you perceive things factors into how you deal with that thing.Like: I liked how he was making fun of how people deal with issues today because some of the ways people deal with issues (such as civil disobedience) are completely ridiculous, which were even better illustrated when putting these methods into the Star Wars script. I liked how he was realistic about how we all consume things from the environment, but we have to do it responsibly.Dislike: I didn’t like the premise he made about Industrial Civilization not being sustainable because I feel that civilization has been around for thousands of years and have had enough to provide for the people living there. I also didn’t like what he was saying about how people are violent when it comes to getting what they want; I feel that it is only representative of a small portion of the population. However, what I dislike the most of the video is that it was incredibly too long and I felt his language was slightly offensive. I feel that if he is slightly intelligent he can get his point across without using the f bomb.Good Points: When he was discussing sustainability, I thought he made a good point when he said that we are continually destroying the landscape but people actually survive by making the environment better. I also though he made a good point when different classes of people are held to different standards, for example, when someone higher up on the hierarchy commits violence against someone lower in the hierarchy, it goes unnoticed, but when someone lower commits violence against someone higher, it is a big deal.
ENG101 TTH 7:30 Euijin ChooUsually, I like a presenter who has many eye contacts with audiences. Since this clip is a recorded presentation, I understand he made an eye-contact with his audience, not a camera rens.But it is quite hard to watch this long clip without any eye-contact with me in which a presenter saw his script a lot.In general, environment issues are serious/heavy subjects to discuss. It was interesting how he approached this serious issue with a sense of humor.Particularly, I never expect someone can start a talk about environment problems with a movie "Star Wars". Since I don't know well about this area, his way to present makes me easily get to his point with his humor and metaphors.I think his point about the lives on hierarchy is a good and plausible point, but personally I don't like this point. Of course, I cannot deny thatthere is a hierarchy where some lives stands in a high position and others stands in a low position. But the points make me sad.Overall, I agree with many points of his, his way to present the points really offended me. Of course, the way also makes me understand the point easily, but I think there may be another good way to present the point while not offending someone. His intensive and sarcastic way to talk is obviously not my type.
I think this was an interesting, yet drawn out video. Overall, it was not one of my favorites because while I agree with some of his first points, I honestly thought it got a little outrageous after that.He did a good job of incorporating humor into a very dry subject, which is something I appreciated. One of his points that I liked was that we don’t survive in the long run by hyper-exploiting our surroundings; we survive by making our habitat better. He elaborated by saying, “Any way of life that's based on the use of non-renewable resources won't last… Any way of life based on the hyper-exploitation of renewable resources won’t last,” which is a great summary of our life as it relates to the planet. He did however conclude that idea by saying, “Any way of life that’s based off the use of any resources won’t last,” but I do not necessarily agree with that part because even nature and animals are responsible for using resources yet that does not harm the environment. Another quote I thought was fairly profound was, “If you perceive another as a resource, you’re going to use them.” This brings our view of nature to a more personal level, because we would never (hopefully) look at another human and only think they’re an object to be used for profit.Unfortunately, I feel like a good number of his points were purely “shock factor” statements which overshadowed the points that I did agree with. For example, Jensen made the comment, “cops are killing machines.” Hopefully I’m not the only criminology major who was bothered by that. He backed it up by saying “Every day, 4-6 Americans die because they encounter police – beatings, shootings, high-speed chases, medical neglect, and prisons and jails.” In statements like these, he is implying that police are the cause of violence, and sometimes death, in our society. They accomplish this by going around unprovoked and beating, shooting, chasing, neglecting, and throwing people in prison just because they want to or have some level of personal gain from that. He also stated that the only reason hitting a police officer with a baseball bat is wrong is because it’s “sending violence up the hierarchy.” This type of mindset towards law enforcement is downright dangerous - if there were enough people with those values, there could be a complete overthrow of civility and morality in our nation!He also said that 9/11 was another example of “sending violence up the hierarchy.” Those kinds of statements are completely ignorant and insensitive to me, but if that’s his personal opinion, it’s not my place to challenge it. Another statement that stood out to me was, “Half a million children die every year as a direct result of so called debt repayment. But of course, those are invisible – those don’t count.” Where does that information come from? Where is the data to back up that number?Those are my reasons for thinking that while there were good points and an intriguing presentation, overall I was not a fan of the video.
I like honest people, so when Derrick Jensen started out his speech by announcing there would be no hidden premise, I was interested. Jensen makes many valid points about modern civilization and the environment, but to me, the most compelling part of Jensen’s speech was his assertion that our current industrial civilization is one based on violence. History proves this to be true: the only countries which concern the United States are ones that hold the natural resources we desire. Jensen makes it evident that first world countries face a major problem of greed which in turn leads to the exploitation of people and natural resources. The one thing which bothered me the most about Jensen’s speech was when he picked up his plastic water bottle. It seems to me that an environmentalist like himself would be at least so concerned as to own a reusable plastic bottle. Jensen seemed to undermine the importance of small, personal steps towards ecological behavior in favor of an extreme wilderness lifestyle. Besides this small hypocrisy, the other part of his speech that bothered me was his overall hatred of government in general. Although his comment about the garbage truck person was quite interesting to me, the fact that he bashed police officers seemed a bit insensitive. Jensen’s speech, besides the water bottle incident, was overall very thought-provoking to me. Personally, I enjoyed his dry sense of humor and his frequent analogies, although I understand that his wit may not be appealing to all audiences. While he certainly made some valid points about our current way of living, I would still like to learn more about his specific ideas for solving our environmental crisis.
Alexis McDade – 8/30/11I liked that Jensen linked the environment and environmentalists to Star Wars. This analogy makes a generally boring topic slightly more interesting. Although the analogy to Star Wars made the topic more interesting, I did not understand the analogy. I was not sure if he was making fun of environmentalists and how they go about doing things. I do not like Jensen’s crude humor throughout the video, I feel that it does not add to his points, but distracts the listener.I agree with Jensen’s point when he says “Any way of life is based on non-renewable resources won’t last; any way of life based on high exploitation of renewable resources won’t last; any way of life based on resources won’t last.” I agree with this because when humans use up non-renewable resources, they will be gone and no getting them back. When they use lots of renewable resources, they generally don’t help replenish these resources and therefore these resources go away permanently. I believe that Jensen’s best point in the entire video is “If you consume the flesh of another, you then take responsibility for the continuation of the other’s community.” I think this way because if you use a resource, but you do not help it replenish itself such as planting trees after you cut one down, then there will be no more resources for us to use. I feel that Jensen has very few points that are good in my opinion. When he says, “A city is a collection of people living in numbers large enough to require the importation of resources”, I disagree. Many other places that are not considered cities have to import resources just because they do not have them available there. I disagree with his second effect of the importation of resources because I do not believe that the importation of resources will cause people’s lives to be based on violence. There are many people who import resources that do not have a violence based life.
By: James GoetheWithin the first 15 seconds of this video, his vulgar message had me convinced that he was slightly out of his mind. This video, filled with mostly ranting about his opinions, was as interesting as it was humorous. Although rather long, he had the audience involved with his opinion, chanting at every word he spoke. His anti-Rush Limbaugh ideas and his personal views captured my attention. One of the themes I liked the most, besides his random ranting, was the idea of equality for all. He described his views of equality for women and said that this world wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in if women ran the country. Along that idea, his views for equality for all nature’s beings were also enjoyable. My favorite line was while he was saying how we view most of nature as dollar signs and that common idea was wrong. His use of metaphors kept me listening and interested throughout the entire broadcast. His obvious clothing made him have the appearance of not only a crack-head, but perhaps a transcendentalist as well; it appeared as though he had been wearing the same clothes for some time now. Moving past his endless rants and his clothing, his illuscent brilliance to today’s world was fascinating to watch, as it seemed as though he thought of words on the spot and topics to say. I enjoyed watching this video overall, but maybe a bit long.
Derrick Jensen’s speech was very amusing, and interesting to listen to. I especially liked his use of the Star Wars script if it were written by environmentalists instead of George Lucas. For example, how it would be called Star Non-Violent Civil Disobedience and the Death Star wouldn’t be blown up at the end, etc. I also liked his joke about how many environmentalists it would take to screw in a light bulb? “10. One to write the light bulb a letter requesting that it change, 4 to circulate online petitions, one to file a lawsuit demanding that it change, 1 to send the light bulb love and kindness, knowing that this is the only way real change occurs, one to accept the light bulb precisely the way it is, clear in the knowledge that to not accept another is to do great harm to oneself, one to write a book about how and why the light bulb needs to change. And finally one to smash the fucking light bulb, because we all know it's never going to change.” This was very clever, and very amusing. I like how he used humor to convey his points. I didn’t really see anything that I didn’t like or disagree with. He was a good public speaker, and explained his views clearly and concisely.
I thought this video was okay. There were times in which the video was interesting and times in which it wasn’t. I appreciate that Derrick Jenson added some humor; otherwise it probably would have been an unbearably boring lecture on what’s wrong with civilization in regard to the environment.He brings up many very good points, some of which are disagreeable. No one wants to believe that their lifestyle is unsustainable, but the current lifestyle of civilization is unsustainable and Jenson is not afraid to say this. Population control is also another touchy subject. If one thinks about it, it is obvious that the human population is already too large and that its current growth is unsustainable. However, when you start talking about population control, you do seem “anti-human” as Jenson states.I dislike how he talks about the police and how he degrades their work. Police face dangerous criminals every day and risk their own lives to protect other humans from dangerous criminals. A police officer must also protect themselves so that they can continue their job of protection, so some dangerous criminals may have to die as a result of the police.I really like his point that if we see something as a resource, we will treat it as a resource. I think that this is true of human nature and that we treat something as we see it, whether it be another human or resource.
Jessica WilliamsI thought this video was okay. There were times in which the video was interesting and times in which it wasn’t. I appreciate that Derrick Jenson added some humor; otherwise it probably would have been an unbearably boring lecture on what’s wrong with civilization in regard to the environment.He brings up many very good points, some of which are disagreeable. No one wants to believe that their lifestyle is unsustainable, but the current lifestyle of civilization is unsustainable and Jenson is not afraid to say this. Population control is also another touchy subject. If one thinks about it, it is obvious that the human population is already too large and that its current growth is unsustainable. However, when you start talking about population control, you do seem “anti-human” as Jenson states.I dislike how he talks about the police and how he degrades their work. Police face dangerous criminals every day and risk their own lives to protect other humans from dangerous criminals. A police officer must also protect themselves so that they can continue their job of protection, so some dangerous criminals may have to die as a result of the police.I really like his point that if we see something as a resource, we will treat it as a resource. I think that this is true of human nature and that we treat something as we see it, whether it be another human or resource.(Sorry about the double post, I forgot to put my name on the previous post.)
I enjoyed his Star Wars spoof, and his satirical tone throughout as well, which helped to drive home most of his points.He had a very powerful argument about sustainability when talking about the salmon. If we held ourselves responsible for the continued existence of everything we consumed, we would be living in a drastically changed world.I also thought his theory as to why people fear homosexuality was unique, as it upsets most people's ideas of the man dominating the woman.I couldn't find anything I particularly disliked about Jensen's speech. He argued all his points effectively and his satire made the video all the more interesting.
I agree with shane because i sat and tried to watch this video but it did not spark my interest. The stuff going on in the environment is actually pretty interesting but when a person is sitting talking about it in a monotonous way than it loses my interest and i can not focus. Honestly i don't remember much of what the man said because it bored me too much
Think: I thought it was an interesting video, but it was far too monotonous after the star wars spoof. His humorous parts kind of stitches the whole thing together, but other than that hes kind of inconsistent in his speech. He jumps around and seems sort of unorganized.Like: The humor is obviously the best part, but he does have very good points. I particularly like his point that people will use something based on how they perceive it; as either a resource or something else. Dislike: I don't necessarily disagree with it, his point on violence when not paying rent or stealing food. While i don't deny that police violence happens, the reason it does (it terms of rent and similar things) is to protect the people who are wronged. Otherwise our society would practically disintegrate due to our reliance on paying for services.
Alex Reid After watching this video I am left thinking "wow everyone is bias." Jensen is an extreme anti government, tree hugging, and most importantly ignorant human being. Although I am an avid supporter for the better protection and use of the environment, but Jensen is completely bias and ignorant of other people. Likes: His interpretation of Star Wars as a metaphor for the environment. It was creative and witty. I also like how blunt he was, even though I didn't necessarily agree with him at least he was honest. Dislikes: His monotone voice to me he seems like he honestly does not care, except for his dry bits of humor directed at civilization or governments. He also seems to have a aura of arrogance with him, he seems to believe that he is bigger than he really is.
Alex EldridgeEnglish 101I thought that the video was informing and had some good points, however i feel like he also talked about a lot of irrelevant topics. I liked that he was able to provide humour within his environmental points, it helped keep my interest. However, there were are few times in the video when he would go off onto random stories that did not have relevance. I would think to myself "what does this have to do with the environment?" or "why does this matter?" All in all i thought the video was alright, i just think it needed to be more straight forward.
I found this video to pretty interesting. It was a little long for my taste, but Derrick Jensen managed to keep it pretty interesting due to his sense of humor and the way he both presented it as a lecture and as kind of like a discussion. He had some very good points and I do agree with some of them. Some of the ways that he presented them were a little extreme and some of his viewpoints actually seemed to be a little overthought in my opinion. I feel like he is very much a person who has strong viewpoints in these areas and more importantly he doesn’t care what you think of his opinions and I respect him for that. Overall I found this video to be pretty interesting. A little longer then I usually like listening to people speak, but he kept it intriguing and I think some of the points he raises are valid.
I found this video to bring up many good points, but i persoanlly found that i just couldnt really give any support to this guy. Although i did feel that he did present his information in a very interesting original way with the way he used star wars but it seemed that he didnt have any passion about the subject. I saw no sense of passion coming from this guy. As long as he went on about this and as much as he talked about how we are destroying the enviorment his prsentation of his thoughts just seemed bland and boring. I do think that the points were very legitimate but i just didnt get a very inviting feeling from this Jensen
Cameron Luper (forgot to put name, second post)I found this video to bring up many good points, but i persoanlly found that i just couldnt really give any support to this guy. Although i did feel that he did present his information in a very interesting original way with the way he used star wars but it seemed that he didnt have any passion about the subject. I saw no sense of passion coming from this guy. As long as he went on about this and as much as he talked about how we are destroying the enviorment his prsentation of his thoughts just seemed bland and boring. I do think that the points were very legitimate but i just didnt get a very inviting feeling from this Jensen
MiguelI enjoyed Jensen's sense of humor and how he incorporated it into the talk. I appreciated his intelligent kind of humor. Jensen tied together the environment, culture and politics in a way that I hadn't thought about before which I appreciated. I think the story with the sheriff was good. I don't like that I cannot just tune out of all civilization. If I want to live somewhere, I have to pay someone for it. Land ownership, in my opinion, is a dumb idea though admittedly it is somewhat practical. How can an individual own a little piece of the Earth? Now that's taking it literally, but still, what right does one individual have to keep me off land that belongs to no one and yet everyone? Jensen points this out in his story.
Brady Crawford - ENG 101 - 091I believe Jensen's rant, for I sincerely believe that's the term it deserves, not in a negative sense, just in that it truly jumped to many topics that the coherency of this "public speech" is truly strained. It seemed as if mixed signals came from Jensen, as though he was against environmentalism, but then that he was for it. His underlying comedy, I have to admit, made me chuckle a time or two, and it seemed to add, rather than detract, from the facts that he tried to get across. I was truly enthralled with the Star Wars metaphor, and there were some interesting points he made after (such as the objectifying of women, or his belief on those of a homo-sexual orientation), but I seem to be among many others who believe that after his Star Wars metaphor, his coherence dropped by at least half of what it originally was. Jensen's topic is still unknown to me, and as entertaining as this truly was, I believe I will never discover the true meaning behind this scarcely coherent message that Jensen was sending. If nothing, I believe Jensen to be a witty comic with a set of ideals that he truly believes in, even if I don't truly agree with all of them.
Brittany Moore ENG 101I like the way Derrick Jensen says that there will be no voluntary revolution to sustainable way of life. He states that we don’t talk about it simply because we have "hope" that things will work out on their own. I happen to believe we don’t talk about it because the majority of people are uneducated. Most people don’t know what role they play, or can play in creating a sustainable way of life. I feel like this id one of Jensen's strongest points. There will not be a voluntary revolution. People don’t like change, therefore need structure to change. If there is ever a revolution, I believe it will need to be led by the government or some governing body simply because we need an example to follow. One of Jensen's points that I disagree with is the fact the he says we live in a very violent world. I do believe there is violence in the world, but not an overwhelming amount. His examples of violence were such a far stretch and didn’t seem like valid arguments to me. You are expected to buy food from a grocery store, if you don’t want to buy food you have the option of growing your own. You do not however have the option of stealing. I also disagree that the only level of technology that creates a sustainable lifestyle is the stone age. I believe that we need to focus on technology and use it to our advantage. Use technology to help make our lives more sustainable.Overall I disagree with alot of what Jensen has said, however I do feel that his most important argument was pertaining to creating a sustainable environment. This should have been the topic of his video, I feel that it would have been much more effective that way.
Dylan PoythressUltimately I felt that this was extremely long and full of dry humor. It felt more like I was watching a stand-up comedy routine. One thing I did like was when he talked about a civilization no longer being sustainable when they have to import resources. I dislike that he is bashing the hope of the future of this planet. He is basically complaining about all of our problems yet does nothing about it.
Jacob BrotzmanI think Jensen's definition of what a city is along with defining sustainability allows the audience to see how unsustainable we are living within our societies and within our cities. I like how he challenges the idea of survival of the fittest being that in order to survive you better the environment around you. I did not like his sort of cynical view of humanity and it's intentions. I disagree that people will turn to violence automatically due to importing goods and those goods being unable to be traded. I think people will extinguish every other possible option before violence is brought in to play, especially if their society up to that point has been seemingly sustainable. However, he makes a good point in saying that if a society requires something, they are going to take it. I see his reasoning there but I just don't like to think that humanity is instinctively violent as a first resort.
Like: I love how he used Star Wars to bring a point across. As someone who is a fan of this franchise, Jensen did a really good job about keeping my interest while he talked about the movie. Another reason that made me like this video was of Jensen's humor. Dislike: The only thing I did not really like about this video is the length. Even though it was quite interesting, I believe he could of at least cut the time on the video to be able to get his point across faster.
Although I am not at all interested in hearing about the problems of our environment and the things that we need to do to fix them, I found this video quite interesting. Maybe it was Jensen’s incorporation of some “comedy” that kept my attention, but the fact he wasn’t necessarily trying to be funny and was just stating the facts was what I liked the most. There isn’t anything that I disliked about his presentation. He actually made me want to read his book and find out more about his theories and ideologies behind what is wrong with us as humans and the things that we are doing to harm the environment and ourselves. The only gripe I may have is the length of the video, but I got a lot out of it. I like the point that he made about how the future generations are only going to judge what our generation did by how healthy the landbase that they are given is going to be. When we look back on history, we usually talk about the social issues that played out into how society is today, but right now some of the biggest social issues are what the world is going to be like in 50 years because we are currently running out of natural resources! Overall, I liked what he had to say. It all makes sense and is quite logical, so I don’t understand why everyone can’t just buy into these ideas.
Katherine AtkinsonTHOUGHTS: I think that throughout this video, Jensen provides us with many good points, and also many bad points, that are actually true. He shows us the “scary” side of our reality due to the fact of us being selfish, consuming, and ever expanding individuals. LIKES: One of the only things that stood out to me during Jensen’s Star Wars talk was a statement saying “If we want to change Darth Vader…. We must first be that change ourselves.” I believe that this relates directly to our environment and the way we are using both renewable and nonrenewable sources.DISLIKE: I disliked how monotone and dry Jensen was throughout his speech. I feel as though his talk would’ve been much more inspiring and influential if he weren’t so boring. DISLIKE BUT AGREE: During a part of his speech, he was talking about a conversation that he had with another man who couldn’t see the violence in his life. Jensen went on to explain that “We can’t “be” without having to pay for it; if we don’t pay, somebody with a gun will come and do something bad to us.” Unfortunately, this statement is true, and the support Jensen provides proves it. OVERALL: Overall, Jensen’s talk was much different than those of other speeches and stories that we’ve read. He was an environmentalist with some good points, yet I enjoy reading and hearing the works of other environmentalists who are more optimistic and hopeful for improvement rather than so condescending.
At first this video sounded like it was going to be long and boring since Jensen started out by relating things to Star Wars. However, after that part was over, I found it to be interesting especially with his sense of humor. Parts that I definitely liked were the bit about being over carrying capacity, the fact that there is too much debate and not enough action and that there are different ways to treat the same thing. I didn't like what he said about violence being everywhere. I thought the idea was a little far-fetched.I also disliked the fact that he went off on tangents. Sometimes it was difficult to keep track of what he was talking about.
I personally feel like Jensen has some very good points and finds interesting ways of conveying them. I do feel however that most people wouldn't find this interesting because some of the concepts and details he discusses are more advanced and abstract than most people would know. I have a huge background in the environment and so I understood what he was saying. I just feel that his target audience in this was a group that already knew the dangers our environment was facing. The people who truly needed to hear this wouldn't be as passionate or apt to listen as I was. Jensen should find a way to not only target the Environmentalists but also the corporations and big businesses.
Derrick Jensen portrayed his arguments very well. He used sarcasm, jokes, and comedy to keep the conversation interesting but at the same time using it to strongly prove his point and make the audience think. He supplied definite facts and reasons for his arguments and, where possible, made it as difficult as possible for people who were against his ideas to prove their point. I believe that many of his opinions about modern violence and politics are true, especially his points about sliding the problem by people and the accepted order of violence. I never noticed how much companies and advertisements slide problems by the people on a daily basis. When you place an argument or problem in front of someone that grabs the person mentally, they never even see the actual problem, but instead see how to solve it. The accepted order of violence is seemingly everywhere. In most cases, there is always someone or something higher than you. I believe that what he says about the order of violence only flowing one way is true. There is always an order it will flow, and when it does not flow according to that order, an imbalance is caused that is met with punishment appropriate to the “crime.” Jensen used a great example with the police officer shooting a motorist. At first glance, the viewer thinks this is a good deed and that the motorist must have been doing something bad to cause the officer to shoot him. Then they see that the motorist that was shot was a Hispanic military veteran. This fact upset the order of violence. I believe in some of his theories pertaining to sustainable humanity. Jensen stated that the only truly sustainable civilization is the Stone Age. I do not think this is true. Later in his speech he talks about the difference between exploiting resources and responsibly using resources, which is how/if you take care of your resources in return of them taking care of you. I believe that if we replenished and protected our resources to the extent that we use it then we can be sustainable. This is similar to the concept of planting a tree for every tree that is cut down. If we protect our resources and allow them to develop at the rate of our consumption then we can be balanced and live in a sustainable civilization.
Overall, I didn’t like the video. I thought Jensen was long winded and seemed to act like he was better than everyone else. I did agree with some of his points, like the point about seeing trees and fish as dollar signs or as trees and fish. I extremely disagree with his apparent dislike of all police officers and law enforcement. He generalizes all cops from a couple instances and never fully goes into detail about these instances and what the full story was. I thought most of his points he made only had half proofs and he never really gave much actual scientific data. The humor he used, to me, was only to keep the audience interested after a long boring argument.
A movement is growing based on the book, co-authored by Derrick Jensen, called Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet. Deep Green Resistance has a plan of action for anyone determined to fight for this planet-and win. If you’ve ever been inspired by Derrick’s work, then here’s where the solutions are. The time for action is now. Now this war has two sides…98% of the old growth forests are gone. 99% of of the prairies are gone. 80% of the rivers on this planet do not support life anymore. We are out of species, we are out soil, and we are out of time. And what we are being told by most of the environmental movement is that the way to stop all of this is through personal consumer choices. It’s time for a real strategy that truly addresses the scope of our predicament.Where is your threshold for resistance? To take only one variable out of hundreds: Ninety percent of the large fish in the oceans are already gone. Is it 91 percent? 92? 93? 94? Would you wait till they had killed off 95 percent? 96? 97? 98? 99? How about 100 percent? Would you fight back then?Good people have stayed silent for too long. We’re tired of ineffective, symbolic acts – piecemeal, reactive, and sad. Now our despair and anger can be matched by an even deeper joy, beyond compare, the joy of beginning to fight back, effectively. We are pleased to announce the formation of DGR Action Groups worldwide. Take the first step and join the resistance.Learn more about the strategy, find groups that have formed near you, or find out how to start your own group at:
Post a Comment