User talk:European Social Ecology Institute

Conflict of interest & username problem
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (European Social Ecology Institute) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this :
 * 1) It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
 * 2) Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. 69.181.251.214 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

DGR issues

 * Are you connected with DGR? If so, I'd be interested in having a discussion with you, since I want some of their ideas clarified better in my mind. If you don't have the time for such talk, do you know anyone who does? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.220.164 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not a direct part of DGR at all, but have an interest in social ecology, green anarchism, and the way that some groups have a tendency toward 'anti-human' stances that are often seen as 'eco-fascist'. DGR, like some strands within Earth First! (mostly, it seems, historical), are one of these groups. My attempts to balance the 'press release' that is the DGR wiki is regularly taken down, so far as I can tell by those who see my comments as 'tangential' to the point of the article (with which I disagree, of course). Some of the edits are around the approving tone of much of the article, questioning it's neutrality, whilst I have been occasionally edited as 'not neutral' (in a section labeled 'criticism' [and re-edited slightly under 'further information'])... so we can't win, can we? ;-) Seriously, though... I have attended a couple of their meetings and read the DGR book (from 7 Stories Press), somewhat critically. I am on their facebook. I have no direct connection, and find their pro-environment stance attractive, but their separateness from social and economic contexts concerning. I referenced Bookchin / Foreman for a reason: I think Murray skewered the problems of Deep Ecology quite well; I found Dave's comments cogent, and his later retreat from a moderated position into separatist extremism (as he discusses in the final chapter) rather telling... and, also, reminiscent of DGR and it's public statements. I am happy to give my take on some issues, but certainly don't speak for them (and only 'against' them in some specifics). Someone also editing this page, Painted Raven, may be worth approaching (as that person has been tinkering with pages on Derrick Jensen as well). Or pick up the book? I'd suggest reading it alongside Ed Abbey's 'Monkey Wrench Gang' and the book 'Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching' ('edited' by Dave Foreman). Tim Barton (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I still have trouble seeing why deep ecology or DGR gets pegged as "anti-human" (when most other proposed "strategies" thoughtlessly wish to push humans [and all other life] closer toward extinction via an ultimately dead planet). This characterization seems to me totally untrue. I haven't read any full works of Bookchin, mostly because a few ideas of his that I have heard here and there (especially on the topic of deep ecology, with a lot over-inflated rhetoric) have sort of irked me. Not to say that the fundamental content of his work is false, though, I suppose. It's just hard to pick up on any underlying validity in the writing of someone who constantly resorts to over-the-top childish dramatics and ridiculously developed Hitler analogies. Bookchin also seems adamant (again just from the excerpts I've read) to ignore indigenous people, who can helpfully point us toward some ideas for living sustainably, having done so for thousands if not millions of years. Anyway, I did just read DGR's book, which I thought was very quickly written and therefore urgent and motivating, though I have some of the slight authoritarian fears about DGR that make through-and-through anarchists cringe at them. I haven't read The Monkey Wrench Gang. Which Bookchin text were you referencing on the DGR article, by the way? Is he someone whose works you would recommend? Thanks for the suggestions.

The Bookchin/Foreman debate is in the book Defending the Earth. In terms of other proposed strategies, I think social ecology offers a good approach that certainly doesn't support continued greed and 'growth'. Eco-anarchism has two broad strands, if we over-simplify it, and exclude as irrelevant the technician's tinkering approach in conservation: the 'Bookchinite' strand (and I agree he has sometimes used irksome rhetoric) emphasizes the need to create a balanced and sustainable _human_ ecology (diverse, web-like, non-dominatory and non-hierarchical) as a precursor to a genuinely sustainable long-term balance between human activity and (the rest of) nature; the 'deep' ecology strand does have a logical dynamic (not always followed to it's conclusion by deep ecologists, many of whom are deeply humane) that tends to argue that the planet will get over us, another species will evolve to fill our niche, and that, at an extreme, 'good riddance' to humans. Regarding knowledge and lifestyles of native tribes, nomadic peoples, our human ancestors etc - yes, of course, they have a lot to teach us, but, as a word of caution, they also have a lifestyle that works with far lower population densities: ie, we'd need a considerable contraction of our populations in many countries in order to begin to succeed in their terms. 89.243.53.49 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)