Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Green Anarchism Wallpaper by anarchoart Green Anarchism Wallpaper by anarchoart
Just wanted to upload this for fun..Its not done yet but wanted to upload something for the first time. Will of course upload the real deal later. Leave a comment if you have any ideas of taking it further!

Thanks! Bye!
Add a Comment:
 
:iconcreepdownthestreet:
CreepDownTheStreet Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Luv it! Probably too late to comment, but i still appreciate this piece. Thanks for sharing!
Reply
:iconamarzz:
amarzz Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Student General Artist
niiiiice

keep earth as home, Gaia as name
Reply
:iconmikeymono:
MikeyMono Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
Wow, this is awesome! Love it! I will never need another wallpaper *Theft*

"In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower." - Tyler
Reply
:iconcrawdaddyjoe:
Crawdaddyjoe Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2010
Meh. I'm an ecologist and an anarchist, but I'm not into Green Anarchy. What I am about to say may be easily dismissed as a reformist or anti-environmentalist stance. Do not make this mistake. I am an environmentalist, and a deeply devoted one. That is why I study ecology. In ecology, we think of the ecosystem as a super-system, a ridiculously complex web of interactions between biotic and abiotic factors in a shifting and dynamic ecosystem, in which humans are one species, who have developed and evolved as a part of that ecosystem. There is too much of a tendency both in non-environmentalists and in environmentalists who are not educated in ecology, and especially in Green Ecology, to think of the paradigm of human-environment relationships in terms of two separate spheres of 'humans' and 'nature', or 'civilization' and 'wilderness'. It presents a false view of the world wherein humans exist in a vacuum away from nature, and these two forces are in antagonism for control of the world. It should be noted that when I say 'nature' in these quotes, I refer to the romanticist idea of wilderness, and when I say nature without quotes, I refer to the actual world around us, including those parts of the world heavily modified by humans.

The truth is, humans, as I said, have evolved as part of this ecological community, from the same common history as apes, wolves, and going far back, even trees and protists. For most of our history, we were hunter-gatherers, and even then we were affecting the earth (for example, hunter tribes wiped out all the megafauna in North America and for millennia set fires across the continent). We have always affected the world and always will affect it, just as the same could be said of tree frogs, red oaks, or box jellyfish. Even suddenly not existing and leaving it to a 'natural' state would be affecting it, as would going back to what is supposed to be our 'natural' state- the world is not a functioning ecosystem that we were dropped into. It is an ecosystem in which we have evolved as a constant (and constantly changing) factor. This entire view of 'natural' states isn't really based so much in science as in an outdated romanticist view of the world first put forth by rich, privileged white people who did such things as create the noble savage myth while riding through the very lands their government had just cleared of natives. It basically assumes that everything humans have done since learning they could affect their surroundings was unnatural. This would hardly even work if humans were the only species building homes, cities, monocultures, tools, and language.

Of course, we're not the only species that does those things. We just do them on a grand, complex scale. Birds build nests, we build houses. Ants build mounds, we build cities. Apes use sticks and stones, we use molded tubes of minerals packed with explosive powders to launch other pieces of molded mineral. Termites grow mushrooms, we grow millions of acres of corn and soybeans. Chickens have a system of codes and cries, we have a complex range of vocalizations expressing a huge range of thought and emotion. Ants herd aphids, we breed and domesticate numerous species (in regards to domesticated animals- we have developed a somewhat mutualistic relationship with these animals. Just as the place of certain bacteria is now in a termite's belly, the natural environment of a domesticated animal is in human communities: we have co-evolved with them. They have no home left in the 'wild').

Like any animal, we shape the biotic and abiotic factors around us to suit our desires. We do so, however, on a massive scale- not because we are unnatural interlopers in the pristine wilderness (a wilderness that, in its current biomes, has never existed without us), but because of a very natural thing; we are evolved to adapt and change our environment. We have been shaped by our environment, by the ecosystem we live in, into a species with opposable thumbs, brains, a language that allows us to pass on ideas and accumulate knowledge, and a social instinct that developed first into bands, then tribes, then, with the advent of the division of labor (a development with both positive and negative aspects that I will address soon), agrarian and later industrial and post-industrial societies. So, we shape our environment so immensely because we are good at what we do. We are good at what we do because of evolution.

Therefor, we should think of ourselves not as this separate, antagonistic force dominating nature, but as a part of the ecosystem (remember that a factor in an ecosystem can still be destabilizing to that ecosystem). Clinging to the romanticist view can only have negative consequences at this point. It weakens our arguments by making us seem like misanthropes and strawmen, and moreover, it focuses our entire concern on the preservation of a mythical and nonexistent pristine wilderness untouched by humans. It focuses on limiting human impact on the environment, and not enough on viewing how we, as members of the ecological community, can act in a way that avoids negative unintended consequences of our actions, and promotes an ecosystem that continues the processes that make it hospitable to us. These are difficult, often technical questions that cannot be approached from a mystical, spiritual, or romantic viewpoint, but must be viewed from a scientific and a social viewpoint. The environment depends on it. Moreover, the romanticist viewpoint (so often espoused by urbanites and the wealthy who have time to 'get away from it all' and enjoy this 'pristine' wilderness, and much more rarely espoused by the people, such as myself, who live and work in those places mythicized as sublime and serene) tends to allow us to forget the environmental issues closer to home- for example, diseases spreading in India, toxic housing in inner city America, fishermen being driven out of business by the dead zone caused by too much farm runoff in the Mississippi, lands being starved of nutrients because of dams in Egypt, and migrant farm workers dying of pesticide exposure. These are all environmental issues, and while saving the redwoods is an important cause, to put that cause, which serves primarily the enjoyment of those who can travel to see and be in these pristine places (even if the activists claim some intrinsic value to justify their misplaced priorities- one wonders what low intrinsic value the migrant farm worker has to merit such comparatively greater effort in the name of the redwoods), above these causes is callous and patently classist- I do not mean to say that we should not preserve some parts of the world as being less humanized; this should be a part of the environmentalist movement, but this should not be the main focus- the main focus should be on improving people's lives through an understanding of the ecosystem. I do not wish to see the beautiful wetlands and deep forests of Minnesota, my home, disappear (and indeed I recognize that preserving them is usually complimentary to my goals, as destroying them often has unintended consequences that are extremely negative), but solidarity with farmers wracked by man-made famines and workers whose homes are endangered by clear-cutting mudslides takes my priority, and until these are addressed, I have to keep preserving the swamps I hold dear on the back burner.

When we begin to think of ourselves as part of the ecosystem, we see very quickly that the question is not so much a problem of how we can minimize our impact on the 'pristine' environment we have been interacting with for many thousands of years, but a problem of how we, as a species in this ecosystem with a massive ability to make changes to it, can act in a way that brings the best results taking into account the facts of the world we live in. We see, also, that it is not a struggle of civilization v nature, but a struggle between people, as well- those who make decisions over the world, and affect the ecosystem we live in, and those who suffer the consequences without the power to make decisions.
Reply
:iconcrawdaddyjoe:
Crawdaddyjoe Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2010
This isn't to say that Green Anarchy is all bad; just that there are too many people in the movement who take the romanticist view of wilderness and miss the real issues at hand in favor of a myth not backed by scientific fact (incidentally, there are too many for whom mysticism has replaced science, and the latter is seen as a tool of domination, not the natural extension of reasoning and logic). Really, though, ironic in a movement whose main flaw is based so much on an ethnocentric fallacy, the main contribution of Green Anarchy seems to be their drawing attention back to the ideas of tribalism and indigenous anarchism. While many do this in part due to, as far as I can tell, a misguided 'noble savage' argument (an argument which is dehumanizing, not endearing), there are quite a few who have made some genuinely good points about tribes, tribalism, and the division of labor, and for these the Green Anarchists deserve some credit.

The basic thesis of Green Anarchist neotribalism is that tribes are a time-tested form of social organization that can provide free egalitarianism, a polycentric non-state law code, and a system genuinely based on anarchist principles. Now, first, we should note that not all tribes are so perfect, and some are downright awful. Really, the reason tribes are so interesting, is not because the are all egalitarian, but because some of the only genuinely egalitarian, free, and peaceful societies are tribal. Tribalism lends itself well to federations, and long traditions of having to live together have tended to lead many tribes to equitable, utilitarian solutions. Many examples of non-state legal codes also exist in tribes, and this is useful to us in designing our own ways of resolving disputes. The only misfortune is that these legal codes are not always just, and almost always seem to rely on the association of families and kinship groups, a forced association that may be unacceptable in an anarchist society (and this coming from a man who advocated abolishing nuclear families and creating multigenerational households and part of the networks of non-alienated communities). This, as always, raises that question of whether or not true free association is possible or feasible, or whether a polycentric law code requires some sort of group association for each person. Certainly, Xeer's odays have some potential for anarchism, but even this has strong family/clan factors (also, Xeer, the law of indigenous Somalia, is notoriously sexist). All this talk of tribalism also raises issues of cultural appropriation that need to be explored further.

It seems a paradox to me that many tribes lack our massive division of labor, and yet generally remain fairly healthy (though there is a lot to be said for modern medicine, even if it is driven by corporate greed) while having many hours of leisure. The economics of tribes is something I will need to study another time.

I'm going to go ahead and submit everything I just wrote to the zine- well the first post, at least. I'm getting tired, so the tribalism part is sloppy and needs to be revamped.
Reply
:icontadlos-clan:
TADLOS-CLAN Featured By Owner Jul 24, 2010
awwww
Reply
:icongavinwarnock:
gavinwarnock Featured By Owner Jul 8, 2010
Great job, it's my new wallpaper!
Reply
:icongl0wstick:
gl0wstick Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Woops. Accidentally request a print. D:

Actually, I'd probably buy this but am broke, lol.
Reply
:icongl0wstick:
gl0wstick Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Very nicely done! Love it.
Reply
:iconanarchoart:
anarchoart Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2010
Thank you! haha:D
Reply
:iconpexif:
pexif Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2009  Student Photographer
Anarchism<3
Nice done, keep up the good work:)
Reply
:iconanarchoart:
anarchoart Featured By Owner Dec 26, 2009
Well thank you!:) I got bored with it and started making alot of other things like building a guitar and making shoes. So there will be no further updates on this one i think.

Anarchism is beautiful!
Reply
:iconreddartfrog:
reddartfrog Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2009
Nice work!
Reply
:iconanarchoart:
anarchoart Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2009
Thanks!:)
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×



Details

Submitted on
October 11, 2009
Image Size
462 KB
Resolution
1440×900
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
10,182
Favourites
30 (who?)
Comments
14
Downloads
6,293
×