Note to Readers:

Please Note: The editor of Impact of Sex & War blog is a member of the Ecology of Peace culture.

The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Gary Steiner: Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals In the History of Western Philosophy



Gary Steiner: Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals In the History of Western Philosophy

January 26 2011: Adam Roufberg's Interview with Professor Gary Steiner - Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals In the History of Western Philosophy

Adam Roufberg | Monday, 24 January 2011 | Radio Active Lunch


Part I to III of Adam Roufberg's series of interview with John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University Gary Steiner on his book Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals In the History of Western Philosophy and Animals and the Moral Community: Mental Life, Moral Status, and Kinship. This extensive interview covers the major players in the development of the our moral disposition and the way we view and, therefore, treat animals.

(Gary) Well, in a way, yes, and in a way, no. The industrialized aspects of it, especially in North America, I think took about 2500 years to get to. And you needed a certain set of values that were established in the ancient Greek world and they sort of developed and reinforced themselves over the ensuing several thousand years. And then you basically need the development of capitalism and industrialization and so forth and that’s how you get to things like intensive CAFO, factory-farming type operations. But there’s a sense in which this isn’t really something new because the ancient Greeks already as far back as Aristotle and the stoic philosophers had this view that human beings are the highest beings in the created world and that everything else, including all non-human animals, existed and were, in fact, created expressly to satisfy the needs and desires of human beings. So people as far back as Aristotle—we’re talking roughly 400 BC—argued as a kind of cosmic principle that it’s perfectly permissible to use animals and that we shouldn’t really have any scruples about doing so. Essentially the idea was this: the highest thing a human being can do, these thinkers thought, and this is something you see in a lot of forms all the way through the history of Western philosophy, is engage in detached, abstract, contemplative activity—contemplating the stars, contemplating the eternal truth, and so forth. And the logic was: OK, the way that you make yourself able to engage in contemplative activities is to satisfy your material needs. And from there it was a very, very short step to saying, “Well, OK, everything in the natural world that is not capable of rational contemplation is just an instrumentality to be used by rational beings.” And that’s how this sort of fundamental division got established between human and non-human beings where human beings were considered to be the only rational beings in creation and all non-human beings, including non-human animals, were considered just to be sort of almost inert instrumentalities.


January 26 2011: Adam Roufberg's Interview with Professor Gary Steiner - Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals In the History of Western Philosophy

Philosopher Gary Steiner on Anthropocentrism (03:55)
Part I to III of Adam Roufberg's series of interview with John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University Gary Steiner on his book Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals In the History of Western Philosophy and Animals and the Moral Community: Mental Life, Moral Status, and Kinship. This extensive interview covers the major players in the development of the our moral disposition and the way we view and, therefore, treat animals.

This interview lays the foundation for a series of interviews on human and other-than-human animal relations with the intent to increase interspecies understanding, cooperation and justice.

* Listen to Interview with Prof Steiner: Part 1

* Listen to Interview with Prof Steiner: Part 2

* Listen to Interview with Prof Steiner: Part 3

See also: Notes on Heterophenomenology

**************

Gary L. Francione Interview of Gary Steiner: Animal Rights and Veganism


Podcast: Play in new window | Download

In Francione's Commentary #11, he has a discussion with Gary Steiner, Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy Department at Bucknell University. The interview deals with Steiner's editorial in the New York Times about veganism and reactions he received, including the criticisms from welfarists, many of whom praise slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin and other supporters of speciesist exploitation.

They also discuss how welfarists refuse to engage abolitionists in debate allegedly because they have nothing to say in response to the argument that welfare reform merely increases the production efficiency of animal exploitation.



**************


6/20/2012: REAL Interview with Gary Steiner: Animal Rights and Veganism


Alternative Perspective: Lierre Keith: The Vegetarian Myth (27:52)
Podcast: Play in new window | Download

(Gary) Thanks very much, Caryn. It’s a pleasure to be here.

(Caryn) Thank you. OK, so you have a lot of interesting information about number one: how we got here. I think what’s going on today is really horrific, especially with factory farming and all the exploitation of animals for primarily food and other things. My understanding is it took us about 2500 years to get to where we are today?

(Gary) Well, in a way, yes, and in a way, no. The industrialized aspects of it, especially in North America, I think took about 2500 years to get to. And you needed a certain set of values that were established in the ancient Greek world and they sort of developed and reinforced themselves over the ensuing several thousand years. And then you basically need the development of capitalism and industrialization and so forth and that’s how you get to things like intensive CAFO, factory-farming type operations. But there’s a sense in which this isn’t really something new because the ancient Greeks already as far back as Aristotle and the stoic philosophers had this view that human beings are the highest beings in the created world and that everything else, including all non-human animals, existed and were, in fact, created expressly to satisfy the needs and desires of human beings. So people as far back as Aristotle—we’re talking roughly 400 BC—argued as a kind of cosmic principle that it’s perfectly permissible to use animals and that we shouldn’t really have any scruples about doing so. Essentially the idea was this: the highest thing a human being can do, these thinkers thought, and this is something you see in a lot of forms all the way through the history of Western philosophy, is engage in detached, abstract, contemplative activity—contemplating the stars, contemplating the eternal truth, and so forth. And the logic was: OK, the way that you make yourself able to engage in contemplative activities is to satisfy your material needs. And from there it was a very, very short step to saying, “Well, OK, everything in the natural world that is not capable of rational contemplation is just an instrumentality to be used by rational beings.” And that’s how this sort of fundamental division got established between human and non-human beings where human beings were considered to be the only rational beings in creation and all non-human beings, including non-human animals, were considered just to be sort of almost inert instrumentalities.

(Caryn) I can go two ways with this—but either way I go with it I come to the same conclusion. So, one of the things that I think about is: we say that animals don’t think like we do, they don’t have the language skills like we do—but we’re learning more and more that that’s not true with many animals—and that they don’t have this awareness of the past and the future. And I say, “How do we know what animals think about? How do we know?” To me they have so much intelligence that we don’t have that we don’t even know how to get to, to communicate, to learn from them. They do so many incredible things.

(Gary) It’s a very, very interesting fact that is broadly overlooked in our culture because we’re so inured to this idea that we’re superior. And the way that we’ve sort of represented ourselves as superior is by playing to certain capacities that we think that we have or possess exclusively. So rationality, the capacity for abstract reasoning that you see in things like mathematics, the establishment of abstract principles in ethics and politics, the ability to engage in symbolic or use symbolic language—it’s as if we seized upon certain capacities that we at least arrogate to ourselves as being exclusively human in order to say that you have to have those capacities in order to be fully, morally worthy. And then when we can point out that non-human animals don’t appear to have those capacities, it’s as if they don’t have any other capacities whatsoever and, as you’ve said, we have been learning more and more about the extraordinary capabilities of a lot of animals that make us look a little stupid sometimes, not only in the fact that we can’t do a lot of those things but in the fact that we’re incapable of recognizing those kinds of intelligence on the part of those creatures. One kind of animal, one group of animals, that’s very, very interesting is corvids. Everybody thinks about higher primates but there are several other types of animals that are extraordinarily intelligent and do think about the past and future it would appear. And we can’t be absolutely certain because you can’t interview them in a language that we would take to be dispositive but there seems to be a lot of very compelling evidence that elephants, dolphins, higher primates, and this group of birds called corvids, which includes crows, ravens…I think myna birds are corvids. But crows in particular have been focused on quite a lot and they are quite extraordinary in what they’re capable of doing and I think they put us to shame in some ways in terms of what they’re able to communicate to their current specifics to their fellow corvids and their fellow crows in ways we just would not be able to do. The way they warn their fellow troop members of threats, impending threats, and so forth and the way they all react in a very appropriate way. It’s quite remarkable. They’re monkeys called vervets that have an elaborate system of alarm calls. Every time you turn around you’re finding that they’ve got another one they’ve discovered—that first they thought there were sort of three and now they think there are four or five. And it turns out it has to do with whether it’s an aerial predator or a ground predator, whether it’s a large mammal, or whether it’s a snake. It could be a martial eagle and it could be a martial eagle in the air versus on the ground. There are different distinct calls for each of these types of predators and the others in the group respond appropriately. They respond in a way that would…so, for instance, if it’s something like a large mammal, they run up a tree. If it turns out that it’s something like a snake or something like that they run into the bushes or something like that or they run away. It’s quite remarkable and I think increasingly implausible to suppose that we’re the only really smart creatures on Earth.

(Caryn) Well, we’re the only ones that are destroying the planet.

(Gary) It’s a good point. And there are philosophers who have said that…they’ve claimed in a kind of anthropocentric speciesist kind of way…

(Caryn) Can you define that?

(Gary) Yeah. Anthropocentrism is sort of the core idea of a lot of my work on animals and it’s the idea that humans beings are the central and highest beings in the scheme of things. And speciesism is to species as racism is to race or sexism is to sex. Anthropocentrism/speciesism is this idea that we arrogate to ourselves, as I said before, the position of the highest, most important, most morally worthwhile creature in the world and we give ourselves prerogatives to use other creatures. Where are we going with that?

(Caryn) Right. Well, you mentioned something about this anthropocentric…

(Gary) I lost my train of thought.

(Caryn) That’s OK. Maybe it will come back.

(Gary) It was this delicious vegan lunch that I had a little while ago.

(Caryn) Well, you’re in New York City right now, the greatest city in the world where we have so many vegan options. This isn’t a commercial break, but I love the fact that the one thing that’s wonderful about this lifestyle—and we may get into the fact that it’s not just the lifestyle, it’s something more—is that the food is fabulous. We’re talking about all this heavy stuff and the conclusion is that the life is wonderful once you take it on. And delicious.

(Gary) Absolutely. And I have an interesting anecdote to share which is that my lovely wife, Paula, who is with us here in the studio, she and I went on a belated honeymoon to Northern Italy recently. In a restaurant in one of the cities, one of the popular tourist destinations—Venice or Florence I think it was—we were in a restaurant explaining to the waiter that we don’t eat meat and we don’t eat butter and we don’t eat fish and we don’t eat cheese and we don’t eat eggs. He looked at me very quizzically and said, “What do you eat?” And if he only knew what wonderful things you can eat.

(Caryn) It opens the door.

(Gary) If you just use a little bit of imagination and especially…you know, we’re so accustomed to wanting to eat processed foods, foods that you can take out of the freezer and throw in the microwave or something, but if you’re really willing to prepare whole, fresh food, you can eat very, very well. It’s yummy; it’s much better for your health, as you know.

(Caryn) We’re really getting off the subject here, but this is the subject: food. You made me think of when I was working as an engineer in the semiconductor industry. I traveled quite a bit, and I went to Milan and worked with a company there and they were one of my favorite clients to visit because I loved their cafeteria. This was Italy and in their cafeteria they always had this antipasto available with all of these wonderful grilled vegetables that were always there and then you could choose pasta or rice and a different sauce: tomato sauce or something else. There was always mineral water on the table and olive oil. I didn’t even have to see any of the other food. It was just incredible. I was surprised that they said that.

(Gary) Well, I don’t know what the guy was thinking because then five minutes later he brought out a beautiful plate of grilled vegetables. We pretty much lived on grilled vegetables for two weeks. It was really wonderful. So, what I was saying before I think was simply that it’s troubling and interesting. What you said was we’re the only creatures that are destroying the planet and there are philosophers…what I was saying is there are philosophers in this anthropocentric tradition that proclaim that human beings are the highest beings—the only really God-like beings in creation. We tell ourselves that we have the right to do all sorts of things to animals and that there are no moral consequences to it at all. There have been philosophers in that tradition who say that only human beings are capable of true moral virtue because a certain amount of contemplation is required in order to achieve that. But then they also tend to acknowledge that only human beings are capable of radical evil for the very same reason. That was the point that I think I was trying to make before I got a little addled there, which is that I think if you just look at the way the world is, it’s pretty evident that only human beings are able to sort of undertake deliberate harm on such a large scale with deliberate forethought.

(Caryn) Absolutely. It takes my breath away.

(Gary) Can I ask you a question? Do you know the work of Mark Bekoff?

(Caryn) Yes. I spoke with him once on this show.

(Gary) He is absolutely wonderful. He’s written a book with Jessica Pierce called Wild Justice. He’s written many, many, many books. He is a pioneer in candid play behavior in dogs, the social structures of communities of animals such as dogs and wolves and so forth. He’s done more than a lot of people in the contemporary generation of researches to show that human beings have not cornered the market not only on intelligence but on other regarding behavior—behavior that expresses concern for others. There’s evidence of altruism in various sorts of animals. I think many people know the story about the gorilla at that zoo in the United States maybe in the last ten years. Somebody’s child fell into that pit that separates the gorillas from the spectators. The gorilla climbed down in there and brought the child out and handed it to the parents.

(Caryn) Yeah. There are so many incredible stories if we take the time to pay attention. What I’m thinking of is the stories we hear about the dogs where a family’s either moved away or the dog somehow or other was placed in a place very far away and managed to find either the old home that he lived in or the family who had moved away. You can’t say that the animal isn’t aware of its past when it’s so driven to do that and then to figure out how to find them.

(Gary) Yeah. Cats too.

(Caryn) Please. There’s something there that we need to tap into.

(Gary) And just one other anecdote: I was telling my veterinarian, who’s a good friend of ours, one day a few years ago about this claim that animals don’t really have a sense of their lives as a whole and they don’t really remember pain and these sorts of—I can only call them excuses that people make because…We were talking before about the interview with Gary Francione and Gary Francione has this wonderful idea of moral schizophrenia: that on the one hand we love our pet animals and there are certain aspects of animal life that we embrace and love, but on the other hand we kill—and this is a United Nation number—53 billion land animals worldwide every year just to eat them, just because they taste good and it’s convenient to consume them. That doesn’t even count fish or crustaceans or anything. I said to my veterinarian that I’ve heard people say only human beings really have a sense of time and the future and the past. Therefore when an animal dies, a non-human animal, it’s not really losing anything because it doesn’t have a…it can’t contemplate the future, it doesn’t have an expectation of a long future, it doesn’t really have memories of the past, and so forth. She just looked at me with this angry look and said, “Spend five minutes in any veterinary ER and you will know that animals remember their pain.”

(Caryn) Oh yeah. I don’t doubt it. I was going to say there are more studies now coming out about how we don’t just have memory in our brains, we have memory in all parts of our bodies, which is really fascinating to me and I’ve personally experienced it. So if we can think in different parts of our bodies, why can’t animals think not just in their brains but in other parts of their bodies too? That’s a whole other subject. But what I was talking about in the beginning was that I had two ways to go with this. So, my second way to go, which brings me to the same conclusion is: whether or not animals do think or have memory or have some moral feelings or whatever, whether they do or not, how is it that we can decide it’s OK to inflict pain and suffering?

(Gary) Yeah, it’s kind of a God-complex I think. I’m often asking myself and others this question: what difference does it make whether they can think about the future or think about the past? The way I put it in my last book, Animals in the Moral Community, was like this: there are people who say that human lives matter more in the cosmic scheme of things than animal lives because those lives matter more to their possessors. I absolutely reject that claim. What I argue in Animals in the Moral Community is that our cat Pindar cares about his life every bit as much as any of the humans in this room care about their lives, which is to say to an incalculable, non-quantifiable degree. It’s kind of an infinite regard for one’s own life. When love and other regarding conduct works correctly, it’s possible to have that kind of infinite concern for another. I don’t think the fact that we can think about our lives or think about our futures means our lives matter any more than the life of my cat, Pindar. The problem that a lot of people have with that kind of reasoning is we’re so accustomed to thinking about human life as obviously worth more than animal life. Then people start to try to pigeonhole me and say, “Look, if it were your wife’s life or the life of your cat, which would you choose?” Again I’ve got to appeal to Gary Francione, who is the most lucid thinker in animal rights in the contemporary generation. I think he’s really, really remade the landscape of animal rights thinking. In his book, Introduction to Animal Rights, the subtitle is Your Child Or Your Dog. It seems like you’re familiar with this. The idea is: philosophers, when they try to justify the human use of animals, are often talking about the situation as if it’s one of an emergency like it’s life or death—either the animal’s life or mine. Gary Francione’s point is that is rarely the case. Most of the time, the house is not on fire. You don’t have to decide between your child or the dog. And yet we treat every single instance of the use of animals as if it were some kind of a life-threatening emergency in which if we don’t use the animals, we’re all going to die. It’s just not the case. He says something very interesting, which is, look, if the house is really on fire and you really only can save your child or your dog, you might well save your child. But that would have not so much a moral basis or motivation as what he calls a psychological or emotional one, which is you might just relate more immediately to your child because of things like shared language and so forth. Let’s face it: I love my cat, Pindar, very, very dearly. But the fact that we cannot communicate in human language poses challenges and obstacles for me in my endeavor to understand him. As you were alluding to before, I’m willing to say that might well be at least as much inefficiency in me as it is in him.

(Caryn) That’s a good point. Well, people often use distracting techniques to get us off the point of what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about here is: eliminating pain and suffering, that it is not morally appropriate to cause pain and suffering to sentient beings, that factory farming of animals for food is bad for the environment, it’s bad for our health, it’s bad, bad, bad. When people come along and say, “Yeah, but don’t plants feel pain?”…

(Gary) You’ve seen some of these things in the New York Times over the last three or four years. Since I published in November of 2009 this Op-Ed piece in the New York Times the Sunday before Thanksgiving, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” since then there have been at least three articles in which different writers have made this move. “Well, don’t plants feel pain? How can you say that animals are morally significant and plants are not?” Natalie Onjille did one and Carol Youn did one and most recently Michael Martyr, who is publishing a book this year with my publisher, Colombia University Press, and it’s on plant ethics. He had a little piece in this Philosophy Section of the Opinion Page of the New York Times called “The Stone,” in the last, I don’t know, five or six weeks in which he’s kind of appraisee of the book and it’s this argument that: look, there’s all kinds of interesting signs of communication in plants. He was talking about a certain type of pea-pod that communicates drought condition to the other pea-pod plants in the area and therefore we’re being a little bit glib if we think that animals have moral status and that plants don’t. How can you make that kind of arbitrary distinction? My thinking on that has always been: yeah, and the electric eye on my garage door opener “sees” when there’s a tricycle in the doorway, therefore it has moral status. It just doesn’t make any sense at all. There’s a difference between response and reaction. Reaction is something that happens in a completely non-conscious, non-sentient way. There’s no evidence whatsoever that plants have any kind of conscious awareness of anything. They don’t have central nervous systems. They don’t have nerve receptors or pain receptors. Can I categorically, logically prove that they don’t have sentience? The answer is no. But there’s absolutely no reason to suppose that it’s any more likely that plants have sentience than rocks do.

(Caryn) Yeah. And even if they did, by eating only plants and not animals we’re inflicting pain on far fewer plants because many, many plants have to be grown to feed animals to feed people and it’s inefficient, it’s energy-intensive.

(Gary) It’s a very interesting point that I was asked to address in the Animals and the Limits of Post-Modernism book that will be out this fall. The question was, “What would it be like to make a worldwide shift to veganism? Wouldn’t that be economically and environmentally disastrous?

(Caryn) Oh, it’d be beautiful heaven on Earth.

(Gary) Absolutely. I’m not an agronomist; I don’t know. But, I’ve read a lot of different estimates of how many pounds of plant protein it takes or grain it takes to produce one pound of beef. I’ve read anything from seven to 25 pounds and 2500 gallons of water for one pound of beef. It turns out that over half the arable land in North America is grazing land and that grazing land reduces biodiversity and there’s soil erosion and there’s methane production and there’s all these horrible environmentally devastating things that if these 53 billion animals…What is that? That’s something like almost nine times the world population or something like that or seven times; it’s many, many times the world population. That’s every year they’re being raised and killed. I can only imagine that things would be a lot better environmentally if we didn’t do those things, not to mention the fact that I think it’s an encroachment upon a basic, natural right that animals have not to be killed. My attitude is maybe in a life and death, face-to-face confrontation you’re entitled to defend yourself with deadly force but my guess is that probably nobody listening to this radio program right now is ever going to be in that situation. Now, I sometimes get somebody calling me or e-mailing me angrily saying, “Well, as a matter of fact, I am in that situation or I was in that situation.” I had one person after the Op-Ed piece leave me a very incensed phone message at work saying that she is highly allergic to plant estrogen and therefore she has to eat animal products in her diet. Now, I don’t know medically whether that’s the case. If it were, maybe there’s a justification for that but my point is that I don’t think that many, if any, of the people who read my work or are in the position to make an intelligent decision about these things really is in that kind of position.

(Caryn) Right. OK, we just have a few more minutes before we take a break and I wanted to ask you about your work at Bucknell University. So you teach philosophy. Do you have an opportunity to share these thoughts with your students and does the administration have an opinion on that?

(Gary) The administration has been surprisingly supportive. They have given me an alarming amount of freedom throughout my career to do whatever I want—almost whatever I want—in my teaching. I’ve been encouraged and remunerated to develop courses. I’m teaching this fall, for example, three courses—two of which bear directly upon animals. One of them is…actually all three of these courses this fall will. One’s an introductory course for incoming first-year students on philosophy and literature and there’s a lot of stuff about animals in there, including J. M. Coetzee’s work. I’m teaching an introductory philosophy course called “Gods, Humans, and Animals,” where we are going to read Gary Francione’s Introduction to Animal Rights and another book. And I’m also teaching a whole course, an intermediate-level course, called “Western Perspectives on Animals.”

(Caryn) Nice. Well, I think it’s really important that everybody know what’s going on and think about these things because it’s been in the shadows for way too long.

(Gary) It’s true. And it’s a niche subject; it’s an uphill battle. Right?

(Caryn) Well, when I was at Bucknell a long time ago we actually had a vegetarian meal plan. It wasn’t vegan but it was vegetarian. I don’t think they have one anymore. They were kind of ahead of their time at that time.

(Gary) I think there are some vegetarian options in the dining room but it’s certainly not a basic focus. I’m just giving the overwhelming emphasis on the consumption of animal products in our society—it’s not economically appealing to them to do that. Do you know what I mean? Lamentably.

(Caryn) Yeah, unfortunately. OK, well, let’s take a break and then we’re going to invite Sue Coe to join us. So stay with us. I’m Caryn Hartglass and you’re listening to It’s All About Food.


» » » » [Radio Active Lunch :: Responsible Eating and Living :: Abolitionist Approach]


No comments:

HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]