The Alternative of Real Ecology

Kveldulf Gunnar Larsson

Review: Gwendolyn Taunton

 

 

The Alternative of Real EcologyThe Alternative of Real Ecology is heavily inspired by Pentti Linkola and by Manticore Press author Brett Stevens (to whom the book is dedicated). To prove his point, the author also made a great personal effort to ensure that the book was printed on recycled paper.

As the title states the book deals with the concept of Real Ecology which Larsson differentiates from popular humanist ecology. On the very opening page, the author writes on Real Ecology saying that “Most importantly it does not benefit humanity in any way”, which establishes the mood for the rest of the book by removing the inherent anthropocentrism from environmental concepts and destroying the notion of species based self-delusions. The difference between ecology and Real Ecology is defined by Larsson as based on

the relationship of Humans with Nature. It’s not the science, field or study, the scientific analysis, and/or study.[1]

So when Larsson mentions ecology he explicitly does not mean the academic study of ecology, but rather the connections (or lack thereof) been humans and the environment. For the most part, however, this relationship is perceived as a negative one, with humans as a sort of ‘intellectually-unaware invasive species/apex predator’ that just trashes Nature wherever it goes. Human nature is therefore perceived as being subconsciously in opposition to any Real Ecology because of humanities genetic imperative for expansion and progress at any cost to other life forms. Ergo: humanity is seen as ethically inhumane.

Human nature is the single most important reason why humans destroy Nature. There is no real relationship between modern humans and Nature, there is no ecology; it’s doubtful there ever was. We humans take what we need and destroy the rest.[2]

Real Ecology is therefore presented as an alternative to anthropocentric ecology, which places humans as the most important species, and views ecology (as defined by the author) as merely applying safety limits to the environment so that things are not totally obliterated at once. In other words, most modern attempts at ecology are not based on the premise of halting destruction, but simply applying restrictions so humans don’t kill everything and leave a few token patches of wilderness, and that these limitations provide people with a sense of ‘warm fuzzies’ whilst they continue to lay waste to the natural environment.

As such, the book not only portrays a bleak view of humanity, it also presents deliberate and unapologetic misanthropy, which raises the uncomfortable question of “what if there are too many humans?” In answer to this Larsson writes that,

Real Ecology is based on the idea that only the worthy should survive. Simple as that: With only worthy humans there should be no such thing as the ecocide. And that without depopulation Nature will be destroyed.[3]

Although the author does not elaborate on what constitutes a ‘worthy human’ presumably it revolves around ethical standards since such a person would not desire to expand humanity if ecocide was to be the result of this expansion. One would also assume that the basis of being against ecocide would also be the recognition that all animals are sentient and not on a ‘lesser scale of value’ in relation to humans in terms of intelligence or technological prowess. However, this book does not present the classic Left-wing view on nature, it is inherently misanthropic and anti-liberal.

Nature doesn’t have human feelings. Neither can one have human feelings when being an advocate of Nature. Therefore, Real Ecology is heartless, cruel unforgiving, I.H.T. it’s misanthropy, negativism, hatred, etc.[4]

Furthermore, Larsson also asks, “Is ecology anti-liberal, anti-democratic?”

Yes. It has nothing to do with politics. I. H. T. it’s stupid humans that have done nothing better to do that invented the theory that everything anti-liberal and anti-democratic is politics. Ecology is based on the Laws of Nature, which are eternal and fixed; there is no equality as a wolf isn’t a sheep and never will be![5]

So what is the author’s advice on ecology books?

“The best way to find out that an ecological book is good, really ecological? Unpopularity.”[6]

Therefore, if humans actually like an ecology book it is probably more favourable to them as a species and counterproductive to Nature as an impersonal force. Thus the popularity of any Real Ecology book is likely to be in inverse proportion to the number of humans endorsing ecology since Real Ecology would impose limitations on humans as a collective species, whereas ecology is akin to sticking a band-aid on an environmental avulsion.

 

 

[1] Larsson, K. G., The Alternative of Real Ecology (Slovakia: Solitude Books, 2016), 5.

[2] Ibid., 1.

[3] Ibid, 31.

[4] Ibid., 61.

[5] Ibid., 97.

[6] Ibid., 115.

%d bloggers like this: