Killing people is never the answer, whilst I agree with you on some levels and aknowledge the problems that you highlight, I can't agree with your chosen response. Taking militative action is both irresponsible and unproductive and is a fight that you will never win. I wish I could suggest a better alternative but I have to admit my own inadequacy and impotence but I choose not to take a knee jerk reactionary response to this. anon

When reading I thought too that military approach is counter to the idea of peace and education as a solution. Any government, company or individual will change their perspective when the majority of those around them have also.

I have only reached this point after a lot of anger where I would easily have agreed that violence was the answer. It is easy to get angry (or "give in to anger"). But my anger did not help me or my message. I feel stronger for resisting it.

Some feedback for you Dr Barry.

I am inherently against the use of violence, however, I can see a time when it will almost certainly become necessary. I wish this were not true. Unfortunately the corruption and greed pervade almost every sphere of our lives, leaving us only our minds free, and even then, conditioning on every level from a young age has dulled our wits. OUr every freedom is currently being attacked at every level and yet groups with the best will in the world become bogged down with the constant beurocracy and rules compliance. From doing a little research into my local newspaper I fond that what, at first looks like a local or regional company, is in fact controlled by corporation after cover-corporation until you suddenly get to oil companies and chemicals manufacturers. Land is being bought up at a phenominal rate by 'out-of-towners' (probably another front or the greedy rich) so that local people have no choice but the run down, over priced environmentally damaging buildings which no one else wants, pushing them further and further into poverty and oblivion. The only way to stop this is to hit them where it hurts......in the bank balance. The only reason western governments pumped so much money into the system after the recent crash, is because they need us to be more compliant...they don't want us to wake up and smell the shit we are up to our necks in....at least not until they have absolute control. For those few of us who can still hear Mother Earth's voice through the traffic noise and the layers of concrete only hear a quiet, heartrending sobbing, rather than her joyous song.
Namaste

Killing people and violence is NOT the answer.remember what Ghandi achieved whith his non violent methods.i aagree we must have a revolution but it must be in the form of a major shift in thinking.
Tony Juniper, Director of Friends of the Earth, is challenging us to realise that huge
problems such as climate change cannot be addressed unless we understand and establish a
symbiotic relationship with nature. Nature is not out there as an object to be
manipulated and exploited. Humans are Nature too; ultimately life is one, manifesting
itself in millions of forms.

By reducing the amount and use of automobiles by 75% we will have brought so much change to this world, that many of our other problems will easily be solved.
I dare you!

I am a "mainstream" conservationist, and am proud to call myself one. I have always found your views to be extreme, and your musings are exactly the sort of thing that the Glenn Becks of this world love to quote when tarring all conservationists as misanthropic nutballs. Despite this, and my distaste for your frequently bitter invective, I have remained on the e-mailing list because it occasionally draws attention to important conservation issues.

However, your latest posting (in which you call for assassinations!) is completely beyond the pale. The only answer is to turn one's back and hope that you don't do (or cause someone else to do) something harmful, thereby undermining the hard work of us conservationists who work in the real world.

Feel free to call me a sell-out, or whatever, but you should know that you are only undermining the cause of conservation.

There are choices we have to make in this world. We can either speak the truth, or we can find a publisher. I wish you the best of luck in finding a publisher. ;)

Hi Glen
Yeah!
Thanks for the great article here!
Bravo!

Yes we have an overpopulation issue, but more than anything, it's the overpopulation of 'civilised' humans that's the real problem. Our high energy, high consumptive lifestyles are killing us, our communities and the biosphere.

Unfortunately pathological pacifism tends to lock down the perceived left, while the far right is very committed, to the death, to BAU (business as usual) and CAU (culture as usual). The Wetiko disease runs deep in this culture.

Until we biocentrics understand what indigenous cultures have always known, nothing much is going to change as we hit the peak everything event.

'We' (so-called 'civilised') are going to have to use all possible means to love, defend, rebuild our landbases to pass on to future generations of all of life. This may or may not include violence as a situational tool.

That we may need to organise ourselves into a resistance movement and an underground guerilla network, is obvious to me. And as with te IRA in Northern Ireland, only 3% of them ever picked up a gun, the rest provided support and maintained silence when questioned by the police/army.

IMO, those on the left who imediately get hung up on any mention of violence show how well they have been indoctrinated and how deeply embedded they are in the dominant insane culture.

I'm a complex enough being to feel all my feelings, uncluding fear of consequences of eco-destruction, anger at the perps, rage at the elites and the senseless thrashing of the biosphere, sadness at the loss of species at a rate never seen before (the 6th Mass Extinction now well underway), and joy at being alive, and happiness at finding kindred community. My feelings help me to be more fully human, to die to this insane culture.

Kia Kaha!

Regards
Ted
NZ

How can you say this:
On Sep 19, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Ecological Internet wrote:

Even as we pursue revolutionary strategies and tactics to maintain a habitable Earth, commit to remaining free and humane. The answer is neither tyranny of the left nor right. Above all else we must achieve global ecological sustainability through just and equitable means.

And yet advocate, indeed incite, violence & killing?!?!

I agree with you 100% that the time is ripe for an ecological revolution, but NOT a violent one! Did you learn nothing from Gandhi?

When you say things like this, it makes me afraid to support or even associate myself with your organization.

I think that historically this kind of action would have been useful. At this point in history, however, I feel like the slightest hint of such action would be met with crushingly swift police action.
We all feel an overwhelming sense of despair at the state of the environment, but I truly believe that violence will only beget violence. The only way this could work, would be some kind of coup, if there was high level support for an ecological government with military backing. The state is too powerful and too well equipped with intelligence mechanisms.

I share your sense of urgency. The Obama administration's recent position statement to the Copenhagen negotiators in wich it said tha the treaty shoud be subject to the parties' laws, essentially making te wole thing voluntary, places Obama squarely witin the same camp as Bush. A voluntary agrement is no agreement.and that, bizarrely, is the position of the man for "change." But a call for violent revolution will go nowhere. You are asking to be (sucessfully) prosecuted as a terrorist and jaled befoe a sot is fired. And who is the enemy? If you can't get million followers to agree on that, you can't start a revolution. I would say that if you (or I) use any fossil fuels, you are (or I am) the enemy. Your sense of urgency is correct, but your solution is not.

I have sometimes thought that organised paramilitary action would eventually be the answer, but I feel differently now. I think this essay contains dangerous words. What sort of civilisation will we create if we use violence to overthrow the old one?
We have to find ways to counter the violence against nature which is taking place on every continent. We have to curb human population growth.
I do feel that we need to overthrow the capitalist economic machine which serves the privileged exploiters with its created "needs" and "wants". We need a system which serves families, communities and the environment. We must put the biosphere first and everything else will fall into place.
I agree that as many of us as possible need to get back to the land and restore the earth. We need to start a movement based on connection with everything around us. I am beginning this and you can see my beginnings at www.happytaichi.com.au. I've chosen the path of veganism, celibacy, abstinence from drugs and instead crusading for nature by working to educate and engage my local community (I'm an environmental educator). I connect each day through tai chi/qigong in nature and staying conscious of this connection through the day brings increasing harmony and grace to my life.
We can begin again with peace and harmony - if enough of us do this we will pull the rug out from under the disconnected, mindless system which creates, pain, unhappiness and discord.

I largely agree, although perhaps drawing the line at militant action - unless it can overwhelm the security forces it would be unproductive, surely? But it's not just the 'Gaia-eating growth machine' that needs to be slayed. How do you convince people to forego their cars, fridges, computers, and all the other paraphernalia that we in the west, and now increasingly in China, India etc, have become accustomed to? So no-one ever said it would be easy. But how, and where, do we start? Conventional protest CAN work, there are many examples here in the UK. But I agree it has to become far more powerful and radical if we are to save the planet, and thus ourselves. Jonathan.

I think economic sanctions should be used first, followed by passive civil disobedience. The biggest problem is people do not realize how solvable the problem is. Part of this does rely on the car companies being able to produce affordable, reliable fuel cell vehicles. Toyota and Honda claim they will have them ready by 2015-2016. That will be 1/3 of the problem. Electricity generation is very solvable, even without nuclear. The biggest problem is that everyone has to operate under the same constraints, a low carbon diet, or it will not work. Bush was right in that Kyoto was flawed in exempting developing nations, he was wrong in that climate change is the second most serious problem the human race faces, after controlling WMD's. Also, just for anyone not familiar with this, do some research on waste heat. The organic rankine cycle and waste heat give us the potential to cap GHG growth in 2-3 years, and then make some significant cuts fairly quickly. Structural barriers and power and control of electrical generation are the problems.

Is this really you writing, Glenn? It looks unedited. But if so, violence, attractive from a place of peace, rapidly becomes unattractive when its reality is experienced. Sustainability isn't a battle that can ever be won outright, though as you express here, it can easily be lost. Sustainability can only ever be a perpetual, an on-going, theme. Whatever we do is sustainable, and remains sustainable, until we can't sustain it any longer and then, sadly but obviously, we have lost the sustainability cause. As Burke put it, 'all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.' But there can only be a maintenance of good, not a triumph, for 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.' Pressure is all we can offer, pressure and the revealing of truth. But there isn't a magic, silver bullet. The eco-cides are a multi-headed beast. 95% of people do not think, and you cannot kill them all. The collapse of the western consumerist society will happen anyway and the best we can hope for is a gradual collapse. A violent one will be more catastrophic. It is the unthinking peoples who have control of the worst weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical - and it is only the unthinking who will use them.

What a load of bollocks mate!
Going back to living in the trees is NOT the solution to make Earth support 7 billion people...

Dr Barry, plain and simply put, you're an idiot.

Dr. Barry uses words like “revolution” and at one point even considers “killing those that refuse to stop”. I think what he is getting at with the latter is, the people who are driving the overproduction/overconsumption machine are in fact killing us, the vast majority of humans who just want to live their lives, so he is really talking about designating the most egregious damagers of our finite planet as ecokillers, committing crimes against humanity.

But, the one crucial word that is always absent from Dr. Barry’s always trenchant and righteous criticisms, the lack of which undercuts all his moral urgings, is the absence of the name of our now global economic system: capitalism.

Why is that Glen, with all your education do you not understand that first and foremost people’s relationship to the material world is determined by the economic system under which they operate? Calling for revolution without mentioning capitalism and the political structures that unabashedly embrace it, is like calling for birth control by praying. The nitty gritty causal factor is unmentioned.

I agree with Brooke and Anthony - to resort to violence is a mistake. In addition to the immorality of killing (which some would argue is a lesser evil than killing the Earth), there is the fact that you lose the propaganda war if you go that way - and play into the hands of those in the power structure who want to put an end to your activism.

Demonstrations, sit-ins, obstruction - I'm all for that. But sabotage has already backfired where it's been used, enabling the "eco-terrorist" meme to take hold in the public mind. Start assassinating people, and the government will use its post-9/11 "anti-terrorist" powers to lock up environmental activists for years without charges or the ability to challenge their detention in court.

Violence is simply not the answer, although I sympathise with your anger Dr. Barry. But any sort of militancy will be self-defeating and the divide the ecological movement, and enable those who who are blind and refuse to face the truth and the future to act self-righteously in opposition

The problem here, to my mind, is that Glen Barry is mixing VIOLENT revolutionary actions - such as assassinations -
in with nonviolent actions - such as sit-ins. Property damage is somewhere in-between.
VIOLENT actions scare mainstream citizens and therefore do not enlarge the movement - but split it off.
Well designed NONVIOLENT actions can 'dramatize the issue' as Martin Luther King Jr. puts it - and
that can be powerful, as was the civil rights movement. It was a revolution in action, in purpose, in dignity -
but completely nonviolent (from the protester's side) and very effective. Violence may come from the
status quo side - but if that violence is not responded to with violence from the nonviolent revolutionary's side
(as was also true in India) people become even more aware of the 'power over' of the state, and become even
more sympathetic to the less powerful, but organized, principled, and creative nonviolent movement.

I have no idea why Glen Barry is mixing the two, they are very different. I suspect he has not read Gene Sharp's
works on nonviolent action (www.aeinstein.org, click on nonviolent action) or watched the film series 'A Force More Powerful' highlighting six nonviolent
revolutions of the 21st century. In our desperation we can lash out, but that lashing out can be counter-productive
if we haven't done a clear analysis and put together a strategy that can win allies and build the movement.

Dr Barry,
I agree with the urgency of the task before us and agree that there needs to be a revolution if we are to save life on Earth. I, like the others who posted before me, however, also agree that killing people is NOT the answer and this part of your message really frightened me. A majority of the people who participate in environmental destruction are merely ignorant about the harm they are perpetrating, but once they "see the light" can become some of the most ardent eco-warriors around. Look at Ric O'Barry for example, who helped to establish the dolphin captivity trade and, after he saw the light, became one of the most effective voices against the industry. He has protested, freed dolphins from captivity and through the movie, The Cove, enlightened thousands more about the plight of captive dolphins. So I would urge you to withdraw your call for violence Dr. Barry. The Earth Revolution you call for must come about through a combination of education, protest and direct action, like that accomplished by Sea Shepherd and Rainforest Action Network. Visuals are key. People must see what is happening to the Earth. In our daily lives, everything is hidden from us.

Good grief.

The energy oligarchy's media stooges will be thrilled with this gift. Look for Limbaugh to be foaming about it Monday morning.

I feel very saddened when I see something I deeply support being taken over in such an unconstructive and wholly destructive way.

You will achieve nothing by terrorism except to alienate society from your ideas and hasten the disaster you purport to prevent. Indeed, terrorism is being used all over the world as an excuse to tighten up on the political control of the people. You are falling into a trap. Think again!

If you want to change something, the only way to do it is to do it from the inside, win hearts and minds to your cause by peaceful and intelligent argument. There is a groundswell of support for ecological change and care for our environment.

The first pictures taken of our small blue world over the horizon of our sister planet, the moon, did more to change human thinking than your evil and murderous intent can ever do.

The World has always been capitalist. Every social experiment that went against that has been a dismal failure. Learn to use capitalism to achieve your aims, don't throw bombs like a pathetic King Canute at Bosham trying to turn back the tide which you cannot alter!

It is already becomming apparent to those who wish to keep their wealth, that they will lose it if we don't take more care of the environment. The argument is not yet won for us, we have much more work to do, and we don't need idiots charging in with bombs and wrecking the support of ecological care that we are trying to engender!

The use of violence is not conducive to the type of collaboration needed to change things in favor of nature. Targeted boycotts would be useful, as they were in getting rid of apartheid in S. Africa. Also, leadership and organization are essential to create the new economy, based on organic agriculture and sustainable consumption. People are used to being cogs in the industrial wheel and need excellent and inspiring leaders and organizers to follow their hearts to harmonious living with the rest of nature. Violence engenders violence and is NOT in any way a viable solution.

Urging readers to consider terrorism is astoundingly inconsistent with your highly researched, tightly argued body of work. Perhaps it would be better not to commit every thought to paper. This entry is unworthy of you, Dr. Barry.

Some type of direct action is needed. Killing people who disagree with you makes you as bad as the people you hate. The Huamn race needs a complete make over

I too cannot condone what you are suggesting and feel violence will only make matters far far worse for everyone including the planet and fellow species. I believe all of us must hold onto decency and respect for Life an deach other, for in war both sides begin to look more and more like each other ...and what is born is happening through wound and ignorance, not health. It is compassion and deep understanding of causality, that may save us, not hatred - "Hatred never ceases by hatred, hatred only ceases through love."

I can't agree with you to kill people to fight climate change and ecological collapse. I know where you are coming from in your comments, though. Like you (and James Lovelock), I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about changing peoples' comsumerist habits and getting politicians/business people to make fundamental changes in the way we organise the world. And discussing population growth (the elephant in the room) is still taboo and will not be on the Copenhagen agenda. I would get involved in demonstrations and civil disobedience. However, as a Christian, killing for the cause is a bridge too far.

Eric Conroy, Ireland.

All for military intervention - only one problem... All those armoured vehicles use more petrol than would be saved by forcing a police state on the world... And what about all the carbon dioxide generated when producing all that extra ammunition? No, military force is a wasteful use of Earth's ecological resources.

We're left with education, economic incentives, and hoping for the best. Which I agree isn't much, so all the more reason to not spare our efforts. Keep the good work folks.

I have read what Dr Glen Barry has said, and I agree. My husband and I have been disgussing this exact subject, not as in depth, but because, here is Sydney, I am organising a National Kangaroo Awareness Day in October as there are so many reasons why our kangaroo needs to be protected against the massive slaughter our Government has in stall. There are many Animal Organisations going to participate in a quiet demonstration in the city, and I am the Chief Organiser for this. The environmental issue will definitely be on our agenda. Presently, we do in suburbia, so I am growing my own vegetables and herbs as well as many Australian Natives for the birds and insects to live. I would love to have much for space but due to work commitments it is not possible at this stage. I have been helping all kinds of animals here and overseas now, for 9 years. I believe in going back to Nature, and giving back as much as possible, instead of taking. Thankyou for this incredible extract, and I hope you do get the backing for the purpose of finishing this book It is so true and logical. We do need to go back to Mother Earth. I could not agree more. Kind Regards Gail.

Dr. Bary,

Having read and re-read your thesis, I find that, sadly, I do agree. I am troubled with my mantra - "you cannot take down the master's house, with the master's tools" (violence, including killing) But, that would , it seems, stop or slow the ecocide.

I restore tallgrass prairie, and savanna. I have a sense of how to do that - based on empirical data and the results upon the land. I teach others (mostly younger ones) how to do this. How to ask the land - what it needs.

I will forward your article on to others, and continue to reflect. As to stopping the tar sand, trawling, pipelines and here in the tallgrass - the corn-based ethanol, I still don't know how to stop it. My pen and voice, while used a lot, are not as mighty as the greed.

Best wishes,

You're rockin dude - keep it going.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell

Not only is violence not a good answer, but it is folly to propose it in an open blog.

Also, Tom de Vos is correct: you need to address the systemic problems. I agree with him that Capitalism is a major part of the problem.

The transition to a post-whateveryouwanttocallit cultural paradigm is not going to be pleasant. Adding to the pain through deadly violence is not appropriate IMO.

I do believe that you are inherently right about our future, but sadly I can't see a credible fight to stop it happening for many reasons . Look at the diverse response to this article to gauge the diversity of opinion . The system has used violence to enforce the rule of greed and capitalism and wont hesitate to snuff out disorganised resistance to the ongoing business growth scenarios being played out by most if not all western governments. Despair is the biggest killer of personal freedom and that is now endemic in our culture.The people in power must be approached from another angle not via structured funnels maybe friends or family to push them over the precipice on the issue of climate change . Most are heavily pressured by well paid lobbyist working for major global corporations.

Violence begets violence, peace begets peace. Our world is fraught with destruction - of the environment, animals and people. We do not need to compound this state.

War & revolution can cause a temporary change in a situation but is never a long-term solution. Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"...(e.g. the Russian Revolution maintained a hierarchichal system; Communist rule was perhaps even more brutal than the Tsarist regime it replaced).

Better I feel is positive action & intention, consciousness-raising, education, reduced & green consumerism, permaculture, low-impact living, sustainable diet (veggie/vegan/raw), connection to Nature, community-building...and most of all, LOVE, of ourselves and our fellow Man.

It is not the sinner we should destroy but the sinning. Better to focus energy on creating alternatives, raising awareness, inspiring & informing others and, most of all, changing our Selves...being the change we wish to see in the world. Ghandhi proved this axiom and the power of non-violence.

We need faith in the power of positive thought, word & deed. We can dream Paradise into existence...

Things may look bleak now and the world is definitely at a crisis, a turning point. But the night is darkest before the dawn. When the Earth experienced the mass extinction of the dinosaurs and other species (around 90% wiped off the planet), Gaia recovered. As bad as things appear now, there is always hope.

Please mollify your message else you will alienate many good people who would otherwise be supportive of your aims.

Do not undermine all your good work by espousing a message of hatred, anger and frustration. This will be self-defeating...

People need educating and loving not loathing. We need to be creative in the ways we can change the current system, not destructive.

There is still much ancient woodland left. Yes, Earth is in a sad & critical condition. Yet a shift is coming, we're entering a New Age...Gaia shall rise again like the phoenix.

Spread the message of Life not death. Only Life brings life...and unconditional Love shall set Gaia free...

I agree with many others on here.

Violence is not the answer. It never has been and it never will be.

Are you simply trying to rouse us, or actually believe that violence and killing will work?

I agree with much of what you have to say. But if you believe that violence is the answer, your credibility in my eyes is tremendously deminished.

A revolution of Gandhi's and King's ways will work. And I don't even know if we need to protest AGAINST anyone or do anything against anyone.

We simply need to take action to create the communities and future we wish to see. Starting first with personal actions, while raising awareness about the injustce that is being done by us as individuals first and foremost.

The thing is, we as a society are completely buying into what the governments and corporations are feeding us. We ALL have a choice to eat organic and locally grown foods, create local currencies, use public transportation and bicycle, and the million other eco-beneficial things we can think of and do.

Join with your neighbors and empower them, I will do the same.

peace
Patrick

Patrick

Who goes first in your violent disaster scenario? You or I?
Unless you are willing and able to put yourself and your family in the firing line this is just more academic hot air.

Well there are a lot of people here against violence, and they seem reasonable, to reasonable maybe. The question is simple but I know the answer is (can be) complicated. To look for the correct approach, build consensus, adopt an agreed strategy, it all takes time. So how much time do we have? How long to stop the momentum of exponential population growth and endless striving for glossy magazine lifestyle. I am to easy to blow off, those of you out there with wider knowledge and greater understanding. the poison I think is to be in receipt of the undeniable situation that population driven growth cannot endure and time is running out, some say has run out. Do you propose to talk, find agreement from those who will not agree, do not want to agree, the corporate driven, government coffer driven, win the election valueless tyrants. Look in your kids eyes if your lucky enough, or listen to what they say. I bet it is stop ruining the Earth, we have no time. Stoop those that will not be stopped, you chose and chose soon, please.

Bless you, Dr. Barry.
I am in full agreement with you. It takes clarity and courage to speak this truth - I walk beside you.

Love,
Terri in Joburg

if only hitler was killed...or cheney, maybe 1 million others would have lived and millions more spared suffering we can only imagine. If violence is done to you do not run from those who do it, that is cowardice and that is what the fascists want, they get control through fear. People want to have intellectual discussion while the fire burns away our future, then who would we blame? wandering cannibalistic hoardes feeding on the weak and dyeing sacrificial death cult religions under black sky's through endless deserts. This will be the world of 2109 if people of the earth submit to the ego-villians, it would be better to murder them and send their heads to the others so they know this is war for the future of the earth, and they wont win without bloodshed. Tragic but true this is the nature of war, defend what is yours or have it destroyed, the earth should be soaked in the blood and corpses of its parasitical enemies, and those corpses should be used as substrates to grow mushrooms in the service of bioremediation of damaged industrial sites. It may be paradoxical but death brings life, only at the scale of organisms inhabiting the earth, the earth itself if it was to die, would no longer produce life except of for deep sea thermal extermophiles and other esoterics sorts of lifeforms. Hate is evil. annihilate evil. Make it fear you until it is a broken facade. If at first you have love and compassion in your heart then your actions will reflect this and in so doing would hopefully prevent the need for violent escalation. Although there are those prone to violence and these folks are better enlisted for the cause of the earth than for the dark christian phalanx of earth blood crusaders.

If many people organize and work together we can manifest phenomenon to bring about catharsis in the collective minds of humanity, one such method would be mass meditation on the manifestation of say a ufo. this has happened before many times in many places in 90 something in india ganesh statues suddenly began to drink milk inexplicitly. scientists belieed it was the porous structure of the ceramic statues, but many types, metal, plastic, glass, all drank milk on this particuar day. fascinating stuff. anyways the future will be soaked in the blood of martyrs.

"you cannot take down the master's house, with the master's tools"

um you've obviously never done demo before, you can pretty much use any tools to take down a house, master's included.

"Violence is not the answer. It never has been and it never will be. "

everybody writing here (myself included) are already neck deep in blood. if you have access to internet and computers you are a part of an incredibly violent system. sure you don't have to do the killing, the empire does it for us, to provide us with the energy and material to continue this insane way of life. the only difference is dr.barry is advocating violence against the system and the people killing the world.

news flash: they are killing for you on a daily basis (well mostly for them, but for you too to keep you pacified so you don't feel the urgency of say an iraqi or afghani). and that's only the human level, when you extend the violence to the natural world, the blood were swimming in is getting real deep.

get your pacified heads out of the sand. if in a situation assassination would help we shouldn't rule it out. you're all saying we should so non violent work to stop the death machine. how long have environmentalists lobbied to change or stop the destruction? and to what ends? is it even slowing? is it getting worse? insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

violence is not preferred, but come on. if you wont fight for your planet what will you fight for? were the jews in the warsaw ghetto wrong to fight back against the nazis? would you go silently into the gas chamber? fascists aren't nice people, and this is what we're facing as a world: a concentration camp of utter destruction of the planet.

will you just ask these power hungry sociopaths to stop? and if they ignore you? what then? and if the system collapses and they institute martial law to marshal the last remaining resources, if you're not one of them what will you do?

the FEMA camps await you.

fist raised for the resistance of our planet

I feel Dr Barrys pain and rage and want to lash out against the Earth destroyers, such as the scum who killed the migrating birds in Malta.

Unfortunately, this is what the Powers the Be want us to do, so they have the excuse to unleash their armed guard dogs (police and soldiers) against those of us who love the Earth.

Patriarchy is the root cause of overpopulation and ecocide. We're in this mess because for 6,000 years, under the artificial social system of patriarchy, men have denied WOMEN birth control and MENSTRUAL EXTRACTION so they can limit their childbearing.

Mandated pregnancy caused overpopulation and ecocide.

At this late hour, the only humane solution to stop the tsunami of babies is mass vasectomies for most of the worlds men AND full reproductive and economic rights for ALL the worlds women.

Women do not choose to have children neither they nor the earth can support.

Menstrual extraction must be made available to the worlds women since it can be done safely and privately at home to avoid pregnancy as soon as the first menstrual period is missed. This gets around restrictive religious and secular laws that forbid women to use birth control.

I TOTALY AGREE,
ALL I SEE IS MY WORLD,WHICH IS MY HOME, BEING DESTROYED IN FRONT OF MY EYES,
IF YOUR HOUSE WAS BEING DESTROYED IN FRONT OF YOU ,WOULD YOU STAND THERE AND WATCH,
GOOD ON YOU DR GLEN BARRY.
I TOTALY AGREE, THIS IS THE 11 HOUR STAND UP YOU COWARDS AND FIGHT, I DONT WANT TO USE VIOLENCE ,BUT IT SEEMS I WILL HAVE TO, TO SURVIVE,STOP BEING SO MAMBY PAMBY HIPPIE YOU LOT,
I OPENLY SUPPORT THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT
THANKS FOR THIS DOC
STEPHEN BARTRUP (U.K)

Dear Dr. Barry,

Well, I suppose you have received sufficent criticism for your fervent call for an ecological revolution, including assassinations on behalf of Gaia. As an European, I am not particualarly frightened by the prospect of revolutions, but I wonder if you, as an American,really perceive the full consequences of such measures, despite your qoutating Jefferson. Let's face it, your revolution was simply a tea party, and as Mao Zedong has reminded us, a real revolution is nothing of the kind, although I'm not sure he intended a pun referring to your past. Quite apart from the fact that your recommendations, indeed admonishment for asasinations, (of whom you are of course careful not to mention) are most probably illegal in your country, and will at any rate put your otherwise useful work and the committment of your organization at peril, it reveals an utter impracticable and at this time even destructive strategy. In fact, this all smacks of the desperation of a greybeard putting on a somewhat too youthful act.

A revolution is, if nothing else,a painstaking organizing effort over many years to reach the acceptance of the population,something which is completely lacking in your country, after many years of union bashing, and generally weak position of civil society. The environmental movement, particularly the more radical brands to which you obviously suscribe, is a purely bourgeoise effort with no popular support, and certainly not among your working-(and for the time being often jobless) class. Your lack of analysis of the current economic-ecological crisis is indicated by the fact that you don't mention capitalism with one word in your essay, although you have some opaque phrasing of destructive economic structures or whatever. Dr. Berry, you have still a long way to go on a revolutionary path, and we are not there yet, not by a long shot. Remember what Lenin said; The revolution would fail yesterday, it will still fail today, but it must succeed tomorrow. Meanwhile, and with peacefull means, the environmental movement in your country and worldwide has a lot of organizing work to do to win the general public, or as we say over here, to win the masses.

Best of Norwegian luck!

Yours,

Olav Bakken Jensen

I can't say I'm in agreement with this and it's a relief to see that most people also seem opposed to your rallying call.

The overriding problem we face has to be overpopulation. If we lived in a World with a stable population of 1.5 to 2 billion humans, I don't believe we would be facing the issues of global habitat destruction, climate change, food shortages etc. Should this not be our goal?

If we were able to implement measures that steadily reduced the human population, could we not achieve this? If there were enough individuals and organisations willing to spread the message clearly and consistently that having more than one child is ethically irresponsible this might start to have an effect. I would much rather see a global movement based upon a STOP AT ONE message, than one dedicated to violence and destruction.

I'm not convinced you've thought this revolution idea through. I live on a crowded little island (Britain) with a population of 62 million. If the energy and food distribution systems were dramatically brought to a halt by your revolution, I'm pretty sure I know what would happen. We would all turn to our immediate surroundings for food and fuel. We would very rapidly ensure that there was not a tree left standing or an animal bigger than a mouse still alive. That is not the ecosystem I want to see!

Please have a rethink.

"you cannot take down the master's house, with the master's tools"

um you've obviously never done demo before, you can pretty much use any tools to take down a house, master's included.

"Violence is not the answer. It never has been and it never will be. "

everybody writing here (myself included) are already neck deep in blood. if you have access to internet and computers you are a part of an incredibly violent system. sure you don't have to do the killing, the empire does it for us, to provide us with the energy and material to continue this insane way of life. the only difference is dr.barry is advocating violence against the system and the people killing the world.

news flash: they are killing for you on a daily basis (well mostly for them, but for you too to keep you pacified so you don't feel the urgency of say an iraqi or afghani). and that's only the human level, when you extend the violence to the natural world, the blood were swimming in is getting real deep.

get your pacified heads out of the sand. if in a situation assassination would help we shouldn't rule it out. you're all saying we should so non violent work to stop the death machine. how long have environmentalists lobbied to change or stop the destruction? and to what ends? is it even slowing? is it getting worse? insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

violence is not preferred, but come on. if you wont fight for your planet what will you fight for? were the jews in the warsaw ghetto wrong to fight back against the nazis? would you go silently into the gas chamber? fascists aren't nice people, and this is what we're facing as a world: a concentration camp of utter destruction of the planet.

will you just ask these power hungry sociopaths to stop? and if they ignore you? what then? and if the system collapses and they institute martial law to marshal the last remaining resources, if you're not one of them what will you do?

the FEMA camps await you.

fist raised for the resistance of our planet

Violence is one of the tools and beliefs of the industrialist system. Expansionism as a culture of economy requires military force and so the violence against the biosphere and humans (subset of biosphere) are part of the behavioural modus operandi of industrialist culture. Since the 50s its been possible for humans, through atomic weapons, to end all human life on the planet - this is the natural end of competitive military proliferation and of course of endless growth economics. The question isn't if industrialism will self destroy its populous and numerous others but when.

My point is that violent resistance is futile for 2 reasons - 1) it serves the sub-conscious agenda of industrialism which is self destruction (therefore it is a continuation of the war culture of industrialism so not a conceptual departure), and 2) it is absolutely impossible to beat a power prepared to sacrifice everything, including the capacity of the biosphere to function healthily, in its self defence.

Someone mentioned the insurrection in Iraq as an example of effective violent resistance. This insurrection entirely and wholly serves the industrialist military agenda. It justifies and encourages and expands its potency and power.

The moment you use violence you have chosen to believe that violence can bring human progress and so you have bought into two of the primary principles of industrialist culture; that there is human progress and that violence (against nature and humans) is a legitimate means to achieving it.

I strongly disagree on all counts that violence is an effective or appropriate or right means to stopping the annihilation of our biosphere-selves.

Effective, gradual, non-evangelistic peaceful action and inclusive but unwavering articulation can bring eventual massive departure from involvement and dependency on industrialist culture. But history and common sense must convince us that peaceful means is the only long term hope.

Just to clarify by the bracketed addition to this line....

2) it is absolutely impossible to beat a power [by the violent terms it demands] prepared to sacrifice everything, including the capacity of the biosphere to function healthily, in its self defence.

meaning - you can't beat a violent force much more massive than yourself on its own terms. You must determine the terms which suit your strengths.

If someone is trying to kill you, wouldnt you be allowed to physically defend yourself? If people are attempting to kill earths life supportsystem, thus trying to kill you (your children, your familly, everyone) isnt your only option to physically defend the living planet to save yourself, familly and everyone else?

We have talked for decades, nothing changes. Must act

If you are on a huge overpopulated spaceship and there are people who are breaking the spaceship apart and you understand that if this continues, all will die. What must you do when words no longer work?

Biological life support systems of earth must be physically defended. End talk, start defending.

Ultimately we won't do that much damage to the earth because it respond by killing us with natural catastrophe.

Glen, these are very strong statements you are making!

I do agree however that people's patterns of consumption and childbearing need to be changed, and I think the sooner this happens, the better.

Greenpeace is of course a model of direct action that has been to some extent successful over the years. I regard them currently as being somewhat like protesters at the bottom of the cliff, useful nonetheless. I think what we really need is an organisation like Greenpeace but which addresses the root causes of the environmental problems. I would like to see Greenpeace protesting outside petrol stations, by motorways, outside mall developments and so on, to highlight what is driving our environmental problems - the ordinary purchasing etc decisions of ordinary people.

There is another organisation that has attempted to do that: see www.revbilly.com . The organisation began many years ago with the name The Church of Stop Shopping; they have more recently changed it to the Church of Life After Shopping, I think. Their charismatic leader, a performance artist who calls himself Reverend Billy, is running for Mayor of New York as the Green Party candidate. They came up with some ingenious methods of highlighting their distaste for consumerism, chains and standardised big box stores. They are still active. I think they should start chapters all over the US, and the world!

I think overpopulation is also an important issue and contributes to environmental destruction. There are groups like the Optimum Population Trust that speak out about it. I think we do need more action on it. I would like to learrn more about the Cairo Plan, whether it is being successfully implemented and what more might need to be done to save the planet.

Perhaps you could liaise with some of these organisations and create action alerts on these issues, in addition to ones directly about specific ecosystems. I do think Ecological Internet might have something powerful to add to the efforts of the groups which I have mentioned above.

"I agree with you 100% that the time is ripe for an ecological revolution, but NOT a violent one! Did you learn nothing from Gandhi?"

Gandhi was a failure. look at India today.

hey, just wondering, is there anyone out there preaching non-violence who actually lives a lifestyle which does not require violence? think through it you spoiled children - do you use petroleum products....yes...does the extraction of petroleum products require killing people?
the lifestyles of the civilized is inherently violent. what you fear is change and our counter-violence.

great writing dr. barry.

to all the dogmatic pacifists - your peace is killing people. grow up already.

nice article and discussion

There is already plenty of violence and military action- being used by the takers. When Mother Nature responds we will also probably view hers as violent acts against our complacency and 'civilization' built on exploitation. Our species is malignant- but the Earth has billions of years to recover without us.

well, I suppose many of this comments are posted by people who cooperate with secret agency: they try to keep way of thinking of people under control. And surely, Glen is already under observation of corrupted secret agency in USA. by the way, of course, Glen is totally correct.

Stewart Brand reports,

"We are as gods and have to get good at it."

I hope Stewart will forgive me for saying that he has elucidated at least one of the problems humanity faces now. It appears the formidable global challenges that loom before the human community in our time are likely the result of distinctly human activities borne of extreme foolishness, pathological arrogance, unbridled greed and malignant narcissism. To be a species with such remarkable self-consciousness, intelligence and other splendid gifts and to do no better than we are doing now is a source of deep sadness and occasional outbreaks of passionate intensity (likely signifying nothing).

The first fifty years of my life were lived as if in a dream world in which humans believe and act like gods, a profane world devised by the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us. I had no awareness a single generation would elect sponsors of powerful, greed-mongering economic powerbrokers who would formulate policies and implement business plans that irreversibly degrade Earth's environs, recklessly dissipate its limited resources, relentlessly diminish its biodiversity, destabilize its climate and threaten the very future of children everywhere. My failures include not realizing that my selfish generation were hyperconsuming and excessively hoarding resources, ravaging the Earth, and effectively behaving in a way that could soon lead to the destruction of our planetary home as a fit place for habitation by the children. Even though it is discomforting and difficult to responsibly perform our duties to science and humanity, at least we can speak out loudly, clearly and often about these unfortunate circumstances and in the process educate one another as best we can. Like you, I do not have answers to forbidding questions related to the patently unsustainable 'trajectory' of human civilization in its present, colossally expansive form that has been organized by and for the benefit of the Masters of the Universe. Much more problematic, however, is the ruinous determination of many too many experts who have colluded with the Masters of the Universe to obstruct open discussion of the best available scientific evidence of "what could somehow be real". If what could be real about the human condition and the Earth we inhabit is not confronted with intellectual honesty and moral courage, how is it possible for the family of humanity to adapt to the practical requirements of "reality" in reasonable, sensible, sustainable and timely ways?

An ecological wreckage of some unimaginable sort is likely to be the end result of experts choosing to embrace false common knowledge and to remain willfully blind, hysterically deaf and electively mute rather than skillfully examining and objectively reporting on extant science of human population dynamics and the human overpopulation of our evidently finite and noticeably frangible planetary home. This refusal to respond ably by acknowledging evidence and accepting responsibility for the human-driven global challenges that have emerged robustly and converged rapidly just now could be one of the greatest mistakes in human history. After all, what mistake in history could be greater than the ones made in our time by those self-indulgent Masters of the Universe and their many minions who are knowingly leading humanity down a primorse path, perhaps to precipitate the inadvertent demise of life as we know it and to put at risk a good enough future for the children?

We have entered not only a new year but a new decade as well. Hopefully the deafening silence, disinformation, dishonesty, denial and ideological idiocy that marked the last decade have ended.