Skye Warren. Home Contact us Help Free delivery worldwide.
Free delivery worldwide. Bestselling Series. Harry Potter. Popular Features.
- Endgame, Volume 2 : Resistance - ovperreachithaw.tk.
- Recent Additions.
- Safe Use of Chemicals: A Practical Guide.
- Endgame Volume 2 Resistance!
New Releases. Endgame Vol. Description Having set out the problem of civilization in the first volume, environmentalist Jensen here suggests what to do about it. Among his perspectives are identification, dams, psychopathology, fewer than Jesus had apostles, breaking down civilization, the crash, and the return of the salmon. He does not provide an index. Annotation Book News, Inc. Product details Format Paperback pages Dimensions x x Other books in this series.
Endgame: The Calling James Frey. Add to basket. Rules of the Game James Frey. Sky Key James Frey. I found plenty of bones, but very few butcher marks. Most of the horns had been left behind as well, as had the hoofs plenty of toe bones.
Derrick Jensen - Endgame, Vol. 2: Resistance () | Books | Books to read, Books, New books
There were a lot of juveniles. Generally, the animal remains found at the actual kill-site comprise those left unprocessed, as the area of processing meat, skin, marrow, etc are generally off to one side, up-wind of the kill-site. We found a few arrowheads actually, spear-points , of a style known as Oxbow, which dates to around years ago. Directly below, however, was a place of death, and wanton waste. If the hunters spoke to the bison, they had nothing good to say. Despite this, the grasslands do indeed possess a kind of beauty even in the midst of their unnatural desolation.
You can still find pronghorn antelope, jack rabbits, red-tail hawks, prairie dogs, mule deer and coyotes. Just no bison. And no Plains Cree. A sobering feeling. And closeness here does not imply comfort of any sort.
- Endgame Vol. 2: Resistance;
- Endgame: The Problem of Civilization--Interview with Derrick Jensen!
- Fundamentals of Laser Micromachining;
The East Coast of North America was crowded with confederations and nascent nation-states when the Europeans arrived—and those native groups were warring with each other over the usual things: territory and the resources in that territory. The Moche and the Aztecs repressed countless peoples. The Inca carried little children to mountain tops and smashed their skulls in. The Maya drugged virgins and threw them into cenotes. The Puebla and their pre-cursors ate each other—and lovely as the view from those cliff-face towns are, they were built there for self-defense.
Long before the Dutch arrived, the inhabitants of a chain of islands in a Pacific archipelago were locked in an endemic war that resulted in genocide and enslavement. The first human colonists of Easter Island gave us all the perfect analogy for resource depletion and the collapse that followed.
The distinction depends upon efficacy and capacity—but even the smallest group capable of sustaining itself can exhibit the fullest range of human traits one might consider insensitive, reprehensible and ultimately suicidal. The tone shifts from the personal to rather more academic, as I was more consciously engaged in formulating an argument, rather than simply observing; and my audience had shifted from Jensen himself to … someone else …. It is predicated on the notion that such cultures existed and thrived in the past to which I would point out that yes, they existed, and might even be seen to have thrived, indeed for a very long time, but that life in that system was far from idyllic; one need only look at the paleo-forensic evidence to see the signs of stress, injury, periods of deprivation and malnutrition, and endemic diseases and parasitic invasion, to know that life was hard and plagued with suffering and misery.
And as soon as strategies arrived that had the potential to mitigate that difficult existence, those who could jumped at them. Whether such an idyllic existence existed in the past is, however, not really the point. We have long since passed the point of no return. In the broadest sense, there are two. Both are dependent on a radical depopulation of the human species, down to perhaps one or two percent of the present population. The distinction lies in how we get there, and it is in that distinction on which everything hinges. Hunter-Gatherers need something to hunt and something to gather.
Without them, the hunter-gatherer starves. Accordingly, for that last one or two percent of humanity left after the fall of civilisation, there needs to be enough animals left to hunt and eat; and there needs to be abundant edible plants to harvest and maintain.
Endgame, Vol. 2: Resistance
Having one and not the other is of course possible, as with the traditional Inuit or strictly vegetarian cultures not that many of those ever truly existed , but these were very specific in their characteristics. And for the populations in question, biological adaptation was a crucial factor in survival. Finally, the biome being exploited was in each instance fecund enough to sustain viable if small populations, all other things being equal i.
The answer to that depends on how the other ninety-eight percent died; more specifically, on how quickly they died. If civilisation falls with minimal loss of life, or if it crumbles over a matter of a few years or even a decade or so, then we are looking at six billion very hungry people. What will they eat when the last stockpiles of processed food are gone? Why, they will eat everything a present-day corollary can be found in the Congo, where civilization has already collapsed. And finally, when they too are all gone, when every forest is silent, when the skies are truly empty, they will turn to the last source of food available to them: each other.
This scenario, of slow or gradual collapse, will in fact trigger an absolute extinction of every wild and domestic animal on Earth, concluding with us. Those people who did what they could to prepare for the end will find themselves under siege. They will live for a time in heavily fortified enclaves, desperately defending their livestock, seed-store and harvest, and indeed, the delicious biomass that is their family and friends. Equally or better armed raiders—getting hungrier by the moment—will descend upon those enclaves in ever more desperate waves of need.
And attrition will tell in the end. The bullets will run out; the defenses will be breached; defenders will die; and even if all that is survived, all the livestock will have been stolen, and malnutrition and disease will descend. Medicines will run out or expire, losing efficacy. Eventually, should the enclave prevail and survive the year or two of absolute horror, they will be looking upon a lifeless world.
They will have eaten the last attacker shot or speared to death. If, for whatever reason, their crops fail, they will all die. Jensen advocates taking down civilisation piece by piece, hydroelectric dam by microwave tower, Wal-Mart by oil tanker. He advocates a steady destruction, at some point reaching a threshold of zeal so that the point of no return is finally reached, and it all crashes into ruin.
That sounds like a slow process to me. In fact, it sounds like the perfect recipe for the violent slow-death scenario I have just described. No, one needs to knock off ninety-eight percent of humanity through something faster, fast enough to leave populations of wild animals mostly intact. So what are we left with?
Conventional wars take too long. No, what we need is something biological. But it needs to be virtually untreatable.