Quote from: cr on December 09, 2016, 08:02:27 PM
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on December 08, 2016, 07:31:30 PM
I don't fully agree with Linkola's point of view. Not about current situation, nor his view on human life in general
I don't know any of Linkola's writings in detail, just some parts what could be found easily on the internet. So I would be particularly interested in the exact views on which you don't fully agree with him and why and also what's your point of view on these topics. Thanks!
In brief, all what he generally stands for, in nutshell, is very much worthy of support or at least consideration as valuable argument.
He is one of the very few, if not the only, high profile public figure who openly rejects democracy. For very accurate reasons.
He is elitist with good reasons for it. He is supportive for "any means necessary" policy (incl. terrorism and violence) for change, instead of slow debate only aimed to prevent any change to occur.
He is not merely theorist, but also lives the way he preaches, and beyond. When debate is slow and on level of state, very little is done, his organization/fund purchases land that is exceptional, and preserves it to keep untouched. It's laughably small % that original, real, forest exists in any western country. He didn't just vote and wait, but took means to do what is possible.
One could continue for long time, yet to reply the question, what is that I don't really agree?
His view on human existence seems to be often defined that everything worth of something, was already
done several decades ago. His utmost dislike for technology is fine, yet goes to level where it will not make sense.
He often presents strict view on something what I could perhaps call cultural replication. I certainly agree that in many cases, replication makes things decrease value. Be it numbers of human species or results of their culture. However, things may not born in isolation. Existence of masterpiece may not be the end of development. I recall argument of seeing no point in having for example "orchestra" playing music in village, as it will never create anything of cultural value, as music has been already made and the masters are playing it, so why another bunch of people just replicating it. etc. Whole existence of the city could be questions. It would change nothing in large scale, to wipe out entire population. True, perhaps, but also leaving it there may not change nothing in large scale.
Even if one would be in agreement of drastic decrease of human population (which should be obvious), and return to simpler, more localized agrarian society, one can ask: then what?
What Linkola presents, is most of all man among animals, in harmony of non-human life. Which is fine. But what I believe in is human in evolutionary process. Be it biological, cultural, spiritual, etc. It's fulfillment is not only digging dirt, but ability to discover and develop.
To regress life back to work-to-eat until you die -scenario and to do you best to regress creative spirit and force in man is futile attempt. The best will seek to develop beyond.
That said, Linkola's primary messages are very simple and clear, what nobody could really argue against. Only the harsh reality may disgust humanists and liberal democrats.
