Counter-Currents
640 words
Editor’s Note:
“Deep Ecology” or “Radical Naturalism” is a way of thinking and living that has always been a part of the Counter-Currents project. We are always looking for writers whose approach to deep ecology is consistent with our larger metapolitical outlook. George P. Stimson, Jr., is one such writer. I highly recommend his blog http://www.gpsjr.com/ This is his credo.
Naturalism, in the philosophical sense, is the belief that human society should derive from the natural laws of the earth. This derivation, being natural, needs little or no assistance from those who would attempt to engineer the human condition into their own particular interpretations of progress. Progress, or evolution, is a naturally occurring phenomenon which needs no input from any form of government — except for a form of government put in place solely to assure that the natural evolution of life on earth is permitted to happen.
Since man is an animal, and is thus an undeniable part of earth’s natural order, it is only fitting and intelligent that those humans who want to survive in the best manner possible should subscribe to the tenets of Naturalism.
Radical Naturalism is the system of beliefs of persons who are radically committed to survival of man (as a harmonious part of all life) on this planet, based on the philosophy of Naturalism.
In this blog we will examine many of the factors which are corroding the natural evolution of life and which are instead creating a seemingly certain catastrophe for all life on earth. By examining these factors (and especially so with the help of everyone out there who can contribute to this dialogue with the comments features of this blog), I hope that it will be possible to reverse the suicidal direction in which so many humans are obliviously headed, with the unfortunate consequence that they might drag all people and all life on the planet into the abyss with them.
This is the fervent desire of this blog — that together we can examine the current situation here on earth so as to be able to make informed and intelligent decisions (and to take informed and intelligent actions) that will keep our planet alive for all of us who truly appreciate what a miracle life – all life — is.
Heaven or Hell — it’s our choice
____________________________________
Adherents to Radical Naturalism believe:
1. That the human experience is just a small part of the greater experience of life.
2. That human beings are part of a natural order which is governed by natural laws.
3. That because we live on a finite planet, an ideology of continuous “growth” is misguided. (We favor management of what we have, over growth.)
4. That all of the problems currently facing the world can be traced to the fact that there are already too many humans on the planet.
5. That the interests of the human species do not take precedence over the interests of the various ecological systems which keep the planet healthy.
6. That as intricate and advanced as the human brain is, it is not as vast and complex as are the natural ecosystems which support life on earth. Therefore, humans should always err on the side of caution when dealing with systems that they cannot understand.
7. That any system of government has as its primary purpose the preservation of the natural order of life.
8. That positive interaction with animals is integral for a well-balance human society. (All needless exploitation of all animal species must stop immediately.)
9. That since herbicides and pesticides are only necessary to grow food for an undesirably large population, their use should be ended.
10. That to the extent that it is possible, all disposable products should be banned.
11. That convenience does not trump intelligence.
And since we are evolving naturally, so likely will this list of things that we believe in.
4 comments
I think “Racial Naturalism” is a typo. I didn’t see anything about race on gpsjr’s blog.
But racial naturalism and radical naturalism together sounds like a damn good idea!
Yes, it was a typo. I have corrected it. Read some more of the blog.
Perhaps Jonathan Olsen’s book, Nature and Nationalism: Right-Wing Ecology and the Politics of Identity in Contemporary Germany (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999), would merit review at this website. Judging from the pages that can be read at Amazon.com and Google Books, it looks like a critical but highly informative and relatively objective study of how the historical and contemporary Right in Germany has addressed ecological issues.
Incidentally, I recall that Arthur Schopenhauer condemned the Jewish conception of nature in his Parerga und Paralipomena. The French socialist and naturalist Alphonse Toussenel seems to have done likewise in Les Juifs, rois de l’époque (The Jews, Kings of Our Time), which was first published in 1847.
Re Olsen’s book, if the web site you’re referring to that might do a review of it is gpsjr.com, then I’ll take you up on that suggestion. I’ll get a copy of the book and take a look at it.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.