NationStates Jolt Archive

I know all of you think I'm nuts, but I still want to spread the message while I'm part of civilization, and hopefully this will awaken some of you.

A few months ago I was introduced to anarcho-primitivism. Anarcho-primitivism is basically a critique on civilization. For some reason I was drawn to this philosophy, something inside me clicked, so to speak. I began to research the beliefs more deeply, and the reasoning behind this distrust, and even hatred for civilization.

While I am by no means and expert on this subject, I would like to introduce for discussion, its validity, your responses, etc. I also would like to hear all of your views on civilization itself.

To start off, I would like to use some quotes that demonstrate my newfound beliefs on civilization:

“Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home.” –Jared Diamond

“Industrial technology is by nature exploitative and destructive of the materials that are necessary to maintain it.” –Richard T. LaPiere

“A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements for war.” –Herbert V. Prochnow

“Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.” –Derrick Jensen

As you can tell, I have become very critical of civilization, and for could reason. Civilization is based upon slavery. Now, before you point out that slavery, actual owning of other people, has been abolished in ‘civilized’ nations for over 100 years, we must look closer at society. People are slaves to money and to those in power for everything necessary for survival. People have to pay to even exist on planet Earth, for water, for food, for everything that comes freely in nature.

People pay for these because they are told it is natural and right, by governments, bosses, by society itself. Why do those in control tell people this? to improve their own economic standing; to become wealthy. This wealth comes at the expense of the environment, of the plants and animals, and of other people around the world.

People are dependent on food imported (ie: stolen) from around the world, for clothing, for water from those in power, as local food has been exterminated, water has been polluted.

Civilization is not sustainable. It is based on fossil fuels, which unreplinishable. Fossil fuels also pollute, and are destroying the environment around the world, from melting the ice caps to acid rain. Dams are built which kill rivers, and everything in them. Civilization give people the impression that they are not part of the natural, that people are somehow above the rest of life on earth, which is absurd. What gives people the right to kill of entire species? What gives people the right to kill the earth for monetary gain? Nothing. It is shameful and should be stopped, the sooner the better, before more harm is done.
Civilization has made great medical advances, true, but civilization caused many of the illnesses it treats by the horribly absurd amounts of pollution it has, and continues to produce. Hunter-Gathering peoples lived long and healthy lives, the only negative being high infant mortality rates. However, hunter-gather societies did not destroy the planet, as civilization. Now, many ‘civilized’ feel that hunter gatherers had hard lives, and modern life is much preferable. However,” if you measure some standards, such as the number automobiles, yes; if you measure others, such as leisure time, sustainability, social equality, and food security—meaning no one goes hungry—hunter-gatherers win hands down…” (Jensen, Endgame Volume I pg 52).

So, if you value things and wealth above equality, sustainability, environmental health, then yes, civilization is better. (If you do value things and wealth above life, then there is no help for you)

One reason why hunter-gatherers had food security and sustainability is because a) the limited their population so they would not outstrip what their land-base could sustain and b) they did not over hunt, over-gather (lol, is that a word?) so their land base wouldn’t be harmed.

Civilization does not respect life. It uses life to gain wealth and power into the hands of a few elites, be the kings, dictators, or politicians. Civilization does not respect the natural world. It uses, abuses, and destroys it. Anyone who values life should oppose civilization.

A year ago I wouldn’t be writing this. A year ago I was enamored with civilization, or rather the perceived benifets of civilization: wealth and things. My eyes are open now, and hopefully all of yours will open to.

*This isn’t worded, phrased as eloquently as I would like it to, but I want to share this with you all as soon as possible*









Info on anarcho-primitivism and where I got lots of my info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Jensen
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/index.htm (this has lots of great articles and essays)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology



Endgame Volume 1: The Problem of Civilization by Derrick Jensen
Endgame Volume 2: Resistance by Derrick Jensen

The movie Surplus: terrorized into being consumers (it is in 10 parts, the link is the first part, and you can find the others through this link)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AEiwOM4fAY

The movie dead society:
http://deadsociety.org/view.html

Also from lectures, discussions, arguments, my personal observations.

Join a fight club.

I'll keep my not dying of dysentary, cholera, malaria, and about seventeen other horrifying diseases at the age of 27, thank you.

I'll keep my not dying of dysentary, cholera, malaria, and about seventeen other horrifying diseases at the age of 27, thank you.


You most likely won't, as many indigenous people live long, healthy lives, and have knowledge of how to avoid shitting in their water. Your arrogance is astounding.

Life spans in first world countries are very long, but what right do we have to live 80 years if it means the rest of the world lives 50 years or less, while killing millions of plants and animals in our quest for wealth, things, and also ensuring the future generations inherit a dead world? None.

Civilization is not sustainable. It is based on fossil fuels, which unreplinishable. Fossil fuels also pollute, and are destroying the environment around the world, from melting the ice caps to acid rain. Dams are built which kill rivers, and everything in them. Civilization give people the impression that they are not part of the natural, that people are somehow above the rest of life on earth, which is absurd. What gives people the right to kill of entire species? What gives people the right to kill the earth for monetary gain? Nothing. It is shameful and should be stopped, the sooner the better, before more harm is done.
Only relatively recently has civilization been based on fossil fuels, and it is increasing becoming clear that it is possible to survive without them.

One reason why hunter-gatherers had food security and sustainability is because a) the limited their population so they would not outstrip what their land-base could sustain and b) they did not over hunt, over-gather (lol, is that a word?) so their land base wouldn’t be harmed.

There is a book by Marshall Sahlins about this. In it he says that primitive man was the original affluent society, because they had such as small demand. The phrase refers to the affluent society, the word John Kenneth Galbraith used to describe current times in the US, where people are affluent because there is such a large supply.
Jared Diamond, who you quoted, once said something like, "Which would you rather be, a Stone Age man, a modern American, or a modern Ethiopian? The modern American is clearly the better choice, but the Stone Age man is probably better than the modern Ethiopian."

Civilization does not respect life. It uses life to gain wealth and power into the hands of a few elites, be the kings, dictators, or politicians. Civilization does not respect the natural world. It uses, abuses, and destroys it. Anyone who values life should oppose civilization.
I disagree with this (and your argument overall) just because civilization was the natural creation of people. No one blames the existence of war on bombers, they blame it on the people who made the bomber. Likewise, civilization isn't something people had forced upon them; they chose to create it. It just so happens people can be cruel as well as smart.

People may have originally chosen to create, thousands of years ago, yes, but it isn't a choice anymore. People are slaves to the machine. Slaves to the grind. Civilization only benefits those in power.

All the problems you're suggesting with civilisation are due to humans running rampant and uncontrolled in their pursuit of wealth with the increase in power that technology has given them. Taking societal structure from them now will remove what few barriers to the complete pillaging of this planet we have.

You most likely won't, as many indigenous people live long, healthy lives, and have knowledge of how to avoid shitting in their water. Your arrogance is astounding.

They also happen to have this little thing called "civilization". You should know about, you spent several pages ranting about it.

People may have originally chosen to create, thousands of years ago, yes, but it isn't a choice anymore. People are slaves to the machine. Slaves to the grind. Civilization only benefits those in power.

I'm not in power, yet I can think of twenty benefits I am receiving from civilization right now.

You know what? I'd rather be a slave to money and the internet than a slave to struggling to meet basic survival needs, thankyouverymuch.

In the end, we're all beholden to one force or another, and attempting to "free yourself" by abandoning civilization simply enslaves you to a more primal force.

As for civilization being the root of all evil, if you are faced with a problem, what do you do? Solve it, live with it, or ignore it? Personally, I try to solve my problems, rather than ignoring them or attempting to live with them. Thanks for the effort, though!

People may have originally chosen to create, thousands of years ago, yes, but it isn't a choice anymore. People are slaves to the machine. Slaves to the grind. Civilization only benefits those in power.
Before the dawn of civilization, I'm sure there were social structures, because humans are social animals. Packs of wolves have a hierarchy, the same with elephants and many other animals. Civilization is an extension of this, certainly, but no or less fair.

I'm not in power, yet I can think of twenty benefits I am receiving from civilization right now.

I bet you can. You are in the first world, I presume? You, and me, and the entire first word are the ones in power, well, receive benifets from being tricked into supporting the real ones in power, corporations, politicians, etc.

I reject a lot of what you have quoted.

I believe hunter-gathers had less food security - how else do you explain the advent of agriculture? I also believe that they had less leisure time as they have to constantly defend themselves from other animals, maintain their shelter, and gather/hunt for food. You may argue that modern humanity has very little leisure time, but that is only because you see all humans as slaves to consumerism. It's very easy to disentangle oneself from consumerism and with that stop yourself from being a wage slave, thus freeing up time for simple pleasures and leisure.

You know what? I'd rather be a slave to money and the internet than a slave to struggling to meet basic survival needs, thankyouverymuch.

In the end, we're all beholden to one force or another, and attempting to "free yourself" by abandoning civilization simply enslaves you to a more primal force.

As for civilization being the root of all evil, if you are faced with a problem, what do you do? Solve it, live with it, or ignore it? Personally, I try to solve my problems, rather than ignoring them or attempting to live with them. Thanks for the effort, though!

Enslaving myself to a primal force? The need to eat? The need to drink? The need for shelter? Aren't those the only things people should be 'enslaved' to?

And if civilization is the problem, how is bringing it down abandoning the problem?

I bet you can. You are in the first world, I presume? You, and me, and the entire first word are the ones in power, well, receive benifets from being tricked into supporting the real ones in power, corporations, politicians, etc.

I can name twenty that apply regardless of where I live.

I reject a lot of what you have quoted.

I believe hunter-gathers had less food security - how else do you explain the advent of agriculture? I also believe that they had less leisure time as they have to constantly defend themselves from other animals, maintain their shelter, and gather/hunt for food. You may argue that modern humanity has very little leisure time, but that is only because you see all humans as slaves to consumerism. It's very easy to disentangle oneself from consumerism and with that stop yourself from being a wage slave, thus freeing up time for simple pleasures and leisure.

How do you explain the advent of agriculture? Good question! I don't know why on earth we did. As a result of agriculture we get disease, lives of drudgery in fields, loss of stature, weakening of the senses, and the rise of rules who control the food supply to ensure their rule. So, why was it adopted? I have no idea.

Now, let's look at the situation of liesure time. Farmers usually have to work before sun-up to after sun-down, more than twelve ours a day. Most people around the world have to work more than 8 ours in offices, factories, etc, and many people work more as they need 2 jobs to provide for themselves and their families.

Now, hunter-gathers only needed to find food and shelter. Women usually gathered roots, berries, wild grains, fruits, vegetables, etc, which provided the majority of the diet for the group, though they sometimes hunted. With the entire group gathering food, it wouldn't take them long to feed themselves for the day. Now, finding a deer, or something else to eat might take the men longer, but game was much more plentiful before civilization started killing the earth. Even if the hunters were unsuccessful, there would have been plenty of other things to eat, as stated before. The rest of the day would be spent socializing with the group, and strengthening the bonds of the group through song, dance, etc.

I can name twenty that apply regardless of where I live.

I can think of twenty benefits I would gain from murdering my mum.

Benefits are too subjective to argue about objectively, so if most of the population sees civilization as beneficial, it's beneficial.

I could, through some strange belief, think self castration is beneficial afterall.

I don't think i'm being helpful to the debate:(

Trollgaard, you just reminded me of this.
It was what the Fundamentalists were waiting for. They were not a political party; they made pretense to no formal religion. Essentially they were those who had not adapted themselves to what had once been called the Atomic Age, in the days when atoms were a novelty. Actually, they were the Simple-Lifers, hungering after a life, which to those who lived it had probably appeared not so Simple, and who had been, therefore, Simple-Lifers themselves.Isaac Asimov - I, Robot

Trollgaard, you just reminded me of this.
Isaac Asimov - I, Robot

Probably. Is that bad?

I have decided to turn on pedantic mode :cool:


“Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home.” –Jared Diamond

“Industrial technology is by nature exploitative and destructive of the materials that are necessary to maintain it.” –Richard T. LaPiere

“A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements for war.” –Herbert V. Prochnow

“Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.” –Derrick Jensen


Baseless assertions.


Civilization is based upon slavery.

Assumption.


People are slaves to money and to those in power for everything necessary for survival.

Spin on the word slavery, meaningless assertion.


People have to pay to even exist on planet Earth, for water, for food, for everything that comes freely in nature.


So?


People pay for these because they are told it is natural and right, by governments, bosses, by society itself.

You contradicted yourself. You claimed before that they pay to exist and not for duties sake.


This wealth comes at the expense of the environment

Assumption/overexageration if based on pollutants. Otherwise, why can't we create our own environments on top of pre existing ones?


and of other people around the world.


Not in modern western societies.


People are dependent on food imported (ie: stolen) from around the world

Not necessarily dependent, but in some countries their own agriculture simply cannot sustain the whole population.


for clothing

Also not dependent.


for water

Nope.

as local food has been exterminated, water has been polluted.

No it hasn't.


Civilization is not sustainable. It is based on fossil fuels

Only very recently, civilisations survived before then.

Fossil fuels also pollute, and are destroying the environment around the world, from melting the ice caps to acid rain.

Acid rain rarely happens in civilised society, climate change is not 100% certain.

Dams are built which kill rivers

What?

and everything in them.

So?

Civilization give people the impression that they are not part of the natural, that people are somehow above the rest of life on earth, which is absurd.

Why is it?


What gives people the right to kill of entire species?

This is not inherent in civilisation and thus irrelevant.

What gives people the right to kill the earth for monetary gain?

This is not inherent in civilisation and thus irrelevant.

Nothing.

Who says there should be a right?


Civilization has made great medical advances, true, but civilization caused many of the illnesses it treats by the horribly absurd amounts of pollution it has

Very very few illnesses compared to what it has cured.


Hunter-Gathering peoples lived long and healthy lives

No they didn't, not all of them. But it is absurd to even suggest that we should revert back to Hunter-Gathering, since the population is far too large.


the only negative being high infant mortality rates. However, hunter-gather societies did not destroy the planet, as civilization. Now, many ‘civilized’ feel that hunter gatherers had hard lives, and modern life is much preferable.

It is.


However,” if you measure some standards, such as the number automobiles, yes; if you measure others, such as leisure time, sustainability, social equality, and food security—meaning no one goes hungry—hunter-gatherers win hands down…” (Jensen, Endgame Volume I pg 52).


Wtf? They had nothing to do except eat shit and hunt. Their life was extremely hard, no beds, no comfort, no heating, plus at least half the population would not be fit enough to revert back to hunter gathering.


So, if you value things and wealth above equality, sustainability, environmental health, then yes, civilization is better. (If you do value things and wealth above life, then there is no help for you)


Quality of life is extremely low for hunter gatherers.


One reason why hunter-gatherers had food security and sustainability is because a) the limited their population so they would not outstrip what their land-base could sustain

Exactly! We no longer have a "limited population".


Civilization does not respect life.

Yes it does. The whole aim is to improve quality of life.


It uses life to gain wealth and power into the hands of a few elites, be the kings, dictators, or politicians.

This is not inherent in civilisation and thus irrelevant.


Civilization does not respect the natural world. It uses, abuses, and destroys it.

This is not inherent in civilisation and thus irrelevant.

So, why was it adopted?

Because those who didn't adopt it were overwhelmed forcefully by those who did.

Because those who didn't adopt it were overwhelmed forcefully by those who did.That doesn't explain why the first person adopted it.

That doesn't explain why the first person adopted it.

Who knows why?

Certainly it took a very long time--indeed, most of the time the human species has existed--and even after it began, it spread very slowly for what is supposed to be such a tremendous boon.

Probably. Is that bad?You can't see why that is bad?

The quote is talking about people who are yearning after a life they have never experienced, because they haven't been able to fit into society. This creates a circular reasoning in that there will always be someone who yearns after a more simple life then the one society currently operates in. This continues to the point where a hunter-gather doesn't fit into society. What is left for him?

anarcho-primitivism is all well and good til you wake up to the fact that there are over 6 billion people on this planet all with as much right to your utopia as you. who gets to decide which 5 and a half billion must perish for anarcho-primitivism to ever be viable?

plus there's the irony that you wouldn't be able to be discussing such a concept on the interwebs if you were to go primitive.

Who knows why?

Certainly it took a very long time--indeed, most of the time the human species has existed--and even after it began, it spread very slowly for what is supposed to be such a tremendous boon.

But it evolved along with intelligence. Since the dawn of literacy, civilisation has existed.

plus there's the irony that you wouldn't be able to be discussing such a concept on the interwebs if you were to go primitive.

Yes that is rather ironic.:p

The quote is talking about people who are yearning after a life they have never experienced

The anarcho-primitivist can explain this kind of sentiment perfectly... indeed, if anything she can do so better than the defender of civilization.

All she need point out is that this yearning for a "simpler" life is perfectly understandable in the context of a society that systematically alienates us from our natural selves... and the fact that typically it is expressed in reference to past "simple" lives that were not in fact so simple does not mean that there is no substance to the emotion, or that there has never been a state of human existence that does indeed qualify.

I reject a lot of what you have quoted.

I believe hunter-gathers had less food security - how else do you explain the advent of agriculture? I also believe that they had less leisure time as they have to constantly defend themselves from other animals, maintain their shelter, and gather/hunt for food. You may argue that modern humanity has very little leisure time, but that is only because you see all humans as slaves to consumerism. It's very easy to disentangle oneself from consumerism and with that stop yourself from being a wage slave, thus freeing up time for simple pleasures and leisure.

actually the only advantage that agriculture had over hunter-gathering was in security of supply. hunter-gatherers had more free leisure time (proportionally) and needed less overall effort to produce consumable food. evidence from skeletal analysis of bones from hunter-gatherers and from later sedentary agriculturalists show that the hunter-gatherers were generally freer from contagious and degenerative disease. i wish i had internet sources but my uni account has run out so i only have the books.

anarcho-primitivism is all well and good til you wake up to the fact that there are over 6 billion people on this planet all with as much right to your utopia as you. who gets to decide which 5 and a half billion must perish for anarcho-primitivism to ever be viable?

plus there's the irony that you wouldn't be able to be discussing such a concept on the interwebs if you were to go primitive.

That is the heart of the problem. However, there have never been this many people on the planet, and won't be this many once civilization collapses, there will never be that many people again. Civilization is past the carrying capacity of the planet.

Also, I would ask what gives everyone the right to assume that they, and no others, have the right to exist? Why does civilization have the right to kill all life to further the gains (shortlived gains if the planet is destoryed) of a very, very few? What about the rest of life on planet earth? Are humans so damned special they they can exist at the expense of everything else? I think not.

The population will crash, be that through war, starvation once agriculture fails (because of pollution, climate change, etc), or maybe, by people themselves realizing the world cannot sustain so many people.

But it evolved along with intelligence. Since the dawn of literacy, civilisation has existed.

Wow. You know people 50,000 years ago had the same capacity for knowledge.

One thing about knowledge, intelligence, etc. Sane, intelligent people don't destroy their own landbase. Civilization is destroying its landbase...the planet.

Now who is intelligent?

But it evolved along with intelligence.

Why do you say so?

Since the dawn of literacy, civilisation has existed.

Literacy came after civilization, not before... it was invented to deal with the needs of civilized society.

This is not inherent in civilisation

The subordination of nature--in ourselves, in our environment--is almost a defining characteristic of civilization.

What else is agriculture?

Wow. You know people 50,000 years ago had the same capacity for knowledge.


That is highly debatable. But even if they had the same capacity, they didn't possess the knowledge.


One thing about knowledge, intelligence, etc. Sane, intelligent people don't destroy their own landbase. Civilization is destroying its landbase...the planet.

Now who is intelligent?

I said this before and I will say it again.

1) This is not inherent in civilisation and thus irellavent.
2) It was not intended to be that way
3) It hasn't destroyed it yet, climate change is not 100% certain.

That is the heart of the problem. However, there have never been this many people on the planet, and won't be this many once civilization collapses, there will never be that many people again. Civilization is past the carrying capacity of the planet.

Also, I would ask what gives everyone the right to assume that they, and no others, have the right to exist? Why does civilization have the right to kill all life to further the gains (shortlived gains if the planet is destoryed) of a very, very few? What about the rest of life on planet earth? Are humans so damned special they they can exist at the expense of everything else? I think not.

The population will crash, be that through war, starvation once agriculture fails (because of pollution, climate change, etc), or maybe, by people themselves realizing the world cannot sustain so many people.

the system of states, and particularly the nation-state, is self perpetuating as far as i can see. there is no way for it to fail without global revolution. the time when simple change was possible is long past. we are entrenched in a global system of governance that can only be overturned by either those in power all abdicating at once or those who are subjugated all rising at once. technological advances are moving so fast that any problem has an instant (if short term) solution. if 'civilisation' as we know it now fails because of it's inherent flaws then we all die. only if it is brought to bear by popular movement or by coordinated devolution of power can we survive the collapse of the current system of governance. simple destruction spells the end for everyone. i like to dream but frankly it's hopeless.

Why do you say so?


Without literacy - maths, sciences, philosophy could not exist, or at least not in an in depth state.

Since none of this is found in prehistoric ages, you can only assume that that knowledge was lacking.

Without literacy - maths, sciences, philosophy could not exist, or at least not in an in depth state.

That's not "intelligence."

I see little reason why a "primitive" society would need maths or science, and philosophy doesn't require books or writing... just thinking and people to talk to.

I think the entire concept is lopsided; civilization is sustainable in the long term, but is often in the short term. The main reason why we've been able to support a growing population that has expanded six-fold since the year 1800 is due to growth in productivity, which increased the carrying capacity of the planet massively faster than the rate of global economic growth. We could not support anywhere near the economy or population we have today had we not seen the kind of growth in carrying capacity provided by the industrial and agricultural revolutions.

The concern is at the points when the economy is in transition, mainly because the growth in carrying capacity provided under the old system is no longer adequate to meet demand and environmental stress begins to accelerate. This has happened at multiple times at the past, with often severe consequences.

However, the basic lesson is that civilization survives, prospers, and continues to grow even with the hardships caused by running up against its limits.

so do you have a practical plan for anarcho primitivism or are you just using it to critique modern civlization?

i honestly fail to see the point of bothering with it past the "isnt that an interesting idea" stage.

Who knows why?

Certainly it took a very long time--indeed, most of the time the human species has existed--and even after it began, it spread very slowly for what is supposed to be such a tremendous boon.Well if it spread slowly, that would suggest that it wasn't spread through force. Conquest has a tendency to spread ideas and culture quite quickly. In fact agriculture seems to have been developed independently in a lot of different areas.

The reason for its adoption seems fairly clear to me. In ecosystems the balance of producer, prey and predator often becomes unbalanced leading to starvation in certain species. Agriculture allowed for the production of a surplus that could easily be stored and saved. Meaning that in times of scarcity the community could rely on food reserves instead.

I think you also question why agriculture seems to have been such a long time in the coming. From what I remember, plants that produced energy-rich seeds didn't evolve until quite late in humanity's development. Had they developed earlier there would have been little reason for humanity to be omnivorous. I think the reason why energy-rich seeds evolved was because of extended dry periods caused by climate change. This led to plants that died back and left seeds, bulbs or tubers to have an upper hand against plants that grew all year long.

so do you have a practical plan for anarcho primitivism or are you just using it to critique modern civlization?

i honestly fail to see the point of bothering with it past the "isnt that an interesting idea" stage.

yeh, i'm beginning to feel like that too. maybe it's the gin (and i'm not an anarcho-primitivist) but i don't see the possibility of a sustainable anarchy without all 6 billion+ of us coordinating our efforts to achieve that. and as far as anarcho-primitivism goes, you need a good deal less people around for it to work on anything above the micro-scale.

I think you also question why agriculture seems to have been such a long time in the coming. From what I remember, plants that produced energy-rich seeds didn't evolve until quite late in humanity's development. Had they developed earlier there would have been little reason for humanity to be omnivorous. I think the reason why energy-rich seeds evolved was because of extended dry periods caused by climate change. This led to plants that died back and left seeds, bulbs or tubers to have an upper hand against plants that grew all year long.

that is fascinating, do you have a link or other type source or is that your own musing? i studied agricultural prehistory or whatever the course was called at uni but i never came across such a theory. as far as i was aware the theories on the beginnings of agricluture revolved around climate change causing the need for surplus production as staple sources died out in unmanaged states (plus accidental discovery of course).

That is highly debatable. But even if they had the same capacity, they didn't possess the knowledge.



I said this before and I will say it again.

1) This is not inherent in civilisation and thus irellavent.
2) It was not intended to be that way
3) It hasn't destroyed it yet, climate change is not 100% certain.

You don't believe destruction is inherent in civilization. Have you been sleeping the last 6000 years? Look around. Every culture that didn't want to be a part of civilization was destroyed and assimilated. Non-human life is enslaved or destroyed. Even humans are enslaved and destroyed.

Climate change is not 100% certain? My ass its not. Climate always changes, humans are changing it faster, along with producing massive amounts of pollution, and killing off life.

Well if it spread slowly, that would suggest that it wasn't spread through force.

Or just that there was a great deal of resistance.

Meaning that in times of scarcity the community could rely on food reserves instead.

The problem is that, because agricultural population growth constantly stretched the limit and agriculture made humanity dependent on a much narrower range of crops (not to mention location) than before, those "times of scarcity" were probably increased, not reduced, by agriculture.

The thing is that the population is going to fall, hard, probably within the next 100 years.

How, exactly?

yeh, i'm beginning to feel like that too. maybe it's the gin (and i'm not an anarcho-primitivist) but i don't see the possibility of a sustainable anarchy without all 6 billion+ of us coordinating our efforts to achieve that. and as far as anarcho-primitivism goes, you need a good deal less people around for it to work on anything above the micro-scale.

The thing is that the population is going to fall, hard, probably within the next 100 years.

You most likely won't, as many indigenous people live long, healthy lives, and have knowledge of how to avoid shitting in their water. Your arrogance is astounding.

Life spans in first world countries are very long, but what right do we have to live 80 years if it means the rest of the world lives 50 years or less, while killing millions of plants and animals in our quest for wealth, things, and also ensuring the future generations inherit a dead world? None.

the right of might. You may not approve of it, but it is a fact of life. Power begets control, technology begets power, civilization begets technology. If you have power, and you use it to your own ends (which we all do with whatever power we possess), you have the right to do what you will. It may not be right, but the use, or abuse, of power is in and of itself a natural right.

the system of states, and particularly the nation-state, is self perpetuating as far as i can see. there is no way for it to fail without global revolution. the time when simple change was possible is long past. we are entrenched in a global system of governance that can only be overturned by either those in power all abdicating at once or those who are subjugated all rising at once. technological advances are moving so fast that any problem has an instant (if short term) solution. if 'civilisation' as we know it now fails because of it's inherent flaws then we all die. only if it is brought to bear by popular movement or by coordinated devolution of power can we survive the collapse of the current system of governance. simple destruction spells the end for everyone. i like to dream but frankly it's hopeless.

If civilization falls, we all die? Short of a nuclear war, no, that isn't the case.
How would civilization ending affect, people living traditional lifestyles in the Amazon, in the African bush, in the Australian Outback?

Many people will die, yes, but not all. Hopefully those who survive will see the error of civilization and not start again.

If civilization falls, we all die? Short of a nuclear war, no, that isn't the case.
How would civilization ending affect, people living traditional lifestyles in the Amazon, in the African bush, in the Australian Outback?

Many people will die, yes, but not all. Hopefully those who survive will see the error of civilization and not start again.

self-preservation lends itself to "progress." There will always be those who would move forward technologically, in any society.

The thing is that the population is going to fall, hard, probably within the next 100 years.

It may. there are too many variables when discussing the future, particularly 100 years from now, to allow the verification of any blanket prediction.

How, exactly?

Once oil runs out. Food won't be shipped from the third world to the first, and most nations cannot support their own populations, as they have exeeded their carrying capacities.

THere will probably be major wars before the end of civilization, over what resources are left. There is also the possibility, though I hope this never happens, of nuclear war...
Read Resource Wars by ...I'll find it in just a sec...

The thing is that the population is going to fall, hard, probably within the next 100 years.

on what evidence? nation-states are self sustaining. if a few less devoloped countries fall due to mass starvation it's not going to effect more affluent states. they'll just carry on and if necessary move in on the territory. there is more likelyhood of a neighbouring state filling a power vacuum than there is of the local populace being able to establish their own form of governance. there is simply too much power in the hands of national government. they need to be devolved or overthrown all at once for the fall of modern civilisation to succeed without massive loss of life.

The subordination of nature--in ourselves, in our environment--is almost a defining characteristic of civilization.

What else is agriculture?

This is the primary reason mankind has risen above the animal kingdom--he has displayed the capacity to subvert his natural environment and create a new one [civilization]. I don't approve of technology, but it is inevitable and it is infinitely better to make peace with the establishment than force yourself into what is now become an unnatural state.

If civilization falls, we all die? Short of a nuclear war, no, that isn't the case.
How would civilization ending affect, people living traditional lifestyles in the Amazon, in the African bush, in the Australian Outback?

Many people will die, yes, but not all. Hopefully those who survive will see the error of civilization and not start again.

okay, perhaps 'all' is an exaggeration. but even if some self sufficient communities survive such a fall are they likely to have enough knowledge of the intricasies and complex histories of modern 'civiliation' to not repeat the mistakes that have been made in the last 7 thousand years?

This is the primary reason mankind has risen above the animal kingdom

I am not afraid to fall back down.

it is inevitable and it is infinitely better to make peace with the establishment

"Mak[ing] peace" with anything like the present establishment is an awful idea.

than force yourself into what is now become an unnatural state.

Our natures have not radically changed in ten thousand years. Biologically we are more or less the same as our ancestors.

It is only our lifestyles that have changed radically... and in doing so necessitated the constant subordination of our natural selves.

okay, perhaps 'all' is an exaggeration. but even if some self sufficient communities survive such a fall are they likely to have enough knowledge of the intricasies and complex histories of modern 'civiliation' to not repeat the mistakes that have been made in the last 7 thousand years?

Yeah, this is the other basic question--other than "how the fuck do you manage the transition?"--that bothers me about anarcho-primitivism.

How do you stop what happened before from happening again? At least now we are beginning to finally overcome the problems agriculture brought us... if reverting back just means that in some few thousand years we'll go back to the slow, horrific, and deadly path of "progress", that's hardly good for the species.

I am not afraid to fall back down.



"Mak[ing] peace" with anything like the present establishment is an awful idea.



Our natures have not radically changed in ten thousand years. Biologically we are more or less the same as our ancestors.

It is only our lifestyles that have changed radically... and in doing so necessitated the constant subordination of our natural selves.

The nature of the self has changed with our dependence on society and technology in particular.

fear not i have the solution what we need to do is establish colonies on other planets if humans control multiple worlds then the preasure on one planet to support alll of humanity goes down and if worst comes to worst and a worl does end then hey that sucks but life would go on

The nature of the self has changed with our dependence on society and technology in particular.

Not our "nature"--not our genetic, biological nature.

Yes, we have been changed through our dependence on technology... but not irrevocably, and not in such a way that our present state is "natural" and our natural state "unnatural."

The change itself is unnatural.

Yeah, this is the other basic question--other than "how the fuck do you manage the transition?"--that bothers me about anarcho-primitivism.

How do you stop what happened before from happening again? At least now we are beginning to finally overcome the problems agriculture brought us... if reverting back just means that in some few thousand years we'll go back to the slow, horrific, and deadly path of "progress", that's hardly good for the species.

quite, and i think it's the problem with all anti-statist ideologies. anarcho-primitivism has probably the slowest degeneration to statism with anarcho-capitalism being the fastest. my reason for studying archaeology was to divine why exactly peoples grouped themelves into states, the answer is very complex and i'm not sure anyone has ever made a truly meaningful contribution yet. i wish i could find out so that i might formulate a theory for transition and sustainability of anarcho-*** principles.

that is fascinating, do you have a link or other type source or is that your own musing? i studied agricultural prehistory or whatever the course was called at uni but i never came across such a theory. as far as i was aware the theories on the beginnings of agricluture revolved around climate change causing the need for surplus production as staple sources died out in unmanaged states (plus accidental discovery of course).Uh... sorry, a lot of the crap I come up with is from talks with various people who specialise in that field. So I can't really point you anywhere. I think I also remembered it slightly incorrectly. The plants didn't evolve at around that time, they just began to flourish at that time. This was because the energy they expended in seed production put them ahead of other plants because of the new extended dry periods, when before this trait would have put them at a disadvantage.

This would lead them to becoming predominate in a period of food scarcity. Hence, the reason why they were used for cultivation over other plants.

Or just that there was a great deal of resistance.Why would there be resistance. You make this claim, but do not back it up with a reason.

Whereas, there is much evidence to show that agriculture was developed in many different areas. So it wasn't an unpopular idea that was forced upon a few successfully somewhere and then spread. I think Infinite Revolution is agreeing with me that climate change appears to have been the factor that spurred the development of agriculture by reducing the prevalence of many plants.

The problem is that, because agricultural population growth constantly stretched the limit and agriculture made humanity dependent on a much narrower range of crops (not to mention location) than before, those "times of scarcity" were probably increased, not reduced, by agriculture.Population growth always stretches the limit in any system. It is not a reason to favour any system of living over another.

As I've already said climate change was narrowing the range of plants available to gather from anyway. The desertification of the Sahara occurred around about the same time as the development of agriculture in Sahel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahel) region of Africa. Scarcity was being created by climate change - not agriculture itself.

How would civilization ending affect, people living traditional lifestyles in the Amazon, in the African bush, in the Australian Outback?

Well, considering that they all have what qualifies as civilization they'll pretty much all die.

It is only our lifestyles that have changed radically... and in doing so necessitated the constant subordination of our natural selves.

I find this utterly hilarious coming from a vegan.

If civilization falls, we all die? Short of a nuclear war, no, that isn't the case.
How would civilization ending affect, people living traditional lifestyles in the Amazon, in the African bush, in the Australian Outback?
D'oh, you're missing the point. The collapse of civilisation does not mean that technological advances made and the mindsets forged as a result of it will magically disappear. If anything, the breakdown of social constructs will cause people to rapidly arm themselves with whatever facilitating machinery they can find. With such tools at their disposal, people will continue to pillage resources, only now instead of a single, controlled flow from which people take what they need, you'll have the same people taking whatever they can for themselves at as fast a rate as physically possible.

Humans have acquired the power and the motivation to bleed this planet dry. It would be best not to let them loose on it.

Why would there be resistance.

Because the result of agriculture was massive decreases in health, life expectancy, leisure... virtually every indicator of quality of life.

Not to mention the radical shift in lifestyle that was required.

So it wasn't an unpopular idea that was forced upon a few successfully somewhere and then spread.

You have only shown that it began in several places.

You have not shown that it was a popular idea.

Population growth always stretches the limit in any system.

Yes, but there are different limits.

The birth rate in pre-agricultural societies was restricted by the requirements of a non-sedentary lifestyle... while in agricultural societies there was, if anything, an incentive to have more children, because they provided additional labor.

Not a very good tactic, if avoiding food scarcity is your goal.

I find this utterly hilarious coming from a vegan.

I'm not a vegan.

I'm not a vegan.

Huh. Could've sworn you were one.

Edit: Ah, tracked it down. You were just going on about how killing animals was evil. You just didn't apply that to your own life.

A few months ago I was introduced to anarcho-primitivism. Anarcho-primitivism is basically a critique on civilization. For some reason I was drawn to this philosophy, something inside me clicked, so to speak.
He types into his PC, uploading to the internet.

If we stagnate our species will never leave the Earth and will thus be wiped out. I don't want it to be wiped out.

From what I remember, plants that produced energy-rich seeds didn't evolve until quite late in humanity's development.

really? the only ones i can think of that fit the description are the domesticated ones...

We are actually learning about how agriculture started in our AP World class. One guy's theory is that it started in the Middle East. After the ice age, the animals died off, and people settled down. Instead of chasing after the animals, they brought the animals to them, and then they use wheat and barely to start agriculture, thus supporting a higher population.

Not to mention the radical shift in lifestyle that was required.

to paraphrase a !kung man, "work sucks"

Considering Trollgaard's rather severe missinterpretations and somewhat rosy assumptions regarding life as a paleolithic homo sapiens*, I am pretty certain that all the attention he really needs is a bouquet of flowers over his grave after he dies in his first winter, trying to simulate our dear (If very, very distant) ancestors.

Food security indeed. Hehehehehehehehe. Long and healthy lives. Mwahahahahahaha.

Well, I suppose not everyone wants to look up the fossil record to check whether these shiny claims are true.

* Well, and the workings of modern society (Nevermind some basic technologies in use today), too. But modern society is fun in that severely missunderstanding its inner workings doesn't result in your immediate death.

To Soheran & Trollgaard as both of you seem to be siding anarcho-primitivism;

You claimed these:
1. Civilisation is not sustainable due to the food production in the area it sits on.
2. Civilisation destroys the environment and lowers the maximum population sustainable by that food production.
3. Civilisation shortens human lives by increasing the number of diseases and stress factors involved.

You suggest this:
1. Return to simple societies that are sustainable on the land they use.
2. Such societies have less diseases and longer lifespans by decreasing the population density.

My replies to your claims:
1. Civilisation, meaning the actual cities in which most people live, do not take up much proportion of land compared to unoccupied area.
In Europe, America, Middle East, SE Asia, Australia and most of China, all the cities draw on the land around them for their resources and food. Most of this food-producing land is sparsely populated, certainly below the sustainable population.
2. Civilisation, as a whole, I agree has been the primary tool that humans have ever changed the environment with.
However, civilisation does also try to restrict its pollution when it recognises the problem. What does not work is that countries tend to serve their own self-interest rather than cooperate.
With more civilisation, not less, we can cooperate to solve our pollution problems. I've looked at plans to change our current civilisation's fossil fuels' dependence. There are ways, someone (I can't remember who) already managed to obtain a oil-substitute from compressed organic waste. Green movements do help to reduce pollution, as does the economic forces at work. Rich people do not want waste clogging up their backyard, and when society can afford it, they do clean up.
3. Civilisation has lengthened the human lifespan. Check up the statistics on the average lifespan of humans through out history, it has been increasing. (Much to our concern of greying population) Increasing technology and civilisation stability has led to this increase in general.

My replies to your suggestions:
1. Returning to the simple societies means that the production of food is now much lower due to the loss of technology. Simple societies cannot sustain the level of technology required to keep the human race fed.
As it is right now, the developed societies are the main producers of agricultural produce. America and Europe produce most of the world's wheat and dairy products, probably other things I forgot too.
They export them and flood the developing countries markets. I did a case study of that in economics class. If the Americans can export, that means they are producing excess supply. That also means that they are below the sustainable population at that level of technology.
2. Decreasing the population density essentially means less specialisation in the things we do.
In a hunter-gatherer society I imagine, this is where it may go far off, most of the people concern themselves with a sustainable inflow of food and other materials they need. The probably are a few people who do various specialised jobs like the religion guy, the healer and a few apprentices, and probably the leader (who also works for food).
In a civilised society... the 'healer' profession has more specialists than there are roles in a hunter-gatherer society.
This greater specialisation means that the civilised society people are much better at what they do. This is the reason why civilised society can support the level of technology that makes the same land area support a lot more people than it possibly could normally.
Count the watts of sunlight each area recieves from the sun. Count how much energy the world receives. Divide that by how much each person needs at our current consumption to live comfortably (which is definetely more than required to simple survive). The answer is the theoretical amount of people the world can support.
Nothing is 100% efficient. Its just that civilisation is more efficient at doing that than the simple society. Technology already improves the efficiency by alot. Organisation does far more.

To Soheran & Trollgaard as both of you seem to be siding anarcho-primitivism;

I'm not an anarcho-primitivist.

3. Civilisation has lengthened the human lifespan.

Well, now.

It didn't at the start. Agriculture crashed it. We've been moving slowly up from that low point ever since.

That also means that they are below the sustainable population at that level of technology.

Actually it doesn't. It just means they're producing more food than they need.

That says nothing at all about the long-term environmental impact of that food production, and whether or not it is sustainable.

It's notable, indeed, that the increased efficiency in food production--and in other kinds of production--often just seems to get us to produce more, instead of less at less cost in resources. Which poses an obvious threat to sustainability.

This greater specialisation means that the civilised society people are much better at what they do.

And restricted in what they do. And dependent on others to get what they need--or think they need.

This is a recipe for class society... part of the basis for the systems of hierarchy and domination that have accompanied "civilized" humanity from the start.

I bet you can. You are in the first world, I presume? You, and me, and the entire first word are the ones in power, well, receive benifets from being tricked into supporting the real ones in power, corporations, politicians, etc.

... so, we support the people in power, and in return they help us?

OH NOEZ WE'RE BEING EXPLOITED! Trickery, trickery!

If there is no future potential for human advancement, frankly, there is no point in the existence of the human race as a whole, if everything continues to simply be just the daily boring struggle for survival. Sorry, I'm not particularly enamoured with an ideology that would kill five billion people and, essentially, destroy everything that humanity has or ever will achieve.

And no, billions of people dying is not inevitable. Sure, the world is not sustainable now, but for one the population in developed countries is pretty much either stagnant or declining, and with the advent of technology, we can get more out of the resources we have. Even without the obvious, technological advancements, we don't have to abandon all civilization to reach sustainable levels, just perhaps halve our resource consumption, a tall order but much more plausible than, well, killing everyone.

really? the only ones i can think of that fit the description are the domesticated ones...Wiki lists eight crops as 'founder crops' - Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, Barley, Lentils, Peas, Chickpeas, Bitter vetch, and Flax. All of which have wild variants which pre-date the advent of agriculture. Emmer wheat and Einkorn wheat are what is called relict (once widespread, but no so any more), with Bread wheat and Durum wheat making up the vast majority of production now.


Because the result of agriculture was massive decreases in health, life expectancy, leisure... virtually every indicator of quality of life.

Not to mention the radical shift in lifestyle that was required.Perhaps you overlook other reasons for the decrease in life expectancy like the Pleistocene/Holocene extinction event which would have made hunting and gathering increasingly difficult. And by themselves would have lowered diet variety and thus health, life expectancy and leisure time.

If the climate and habitat changes in prehistoric society, you don't have much option, but to change with it.

If the term hadn't been coined already I'd say anarcho-primitivism could probably be described as paleoconservatism. Or going back to the Asimov quote about Simple Lifers, anarcho-primitivism is just like Agrarianism, but it reveres a society more ancient than the agricultural one.

You have only shown that it began in several places.

You have not shown that it was a popular idea.If the hunter-gather lifestyle was getting increasing difficult then then an agricultural society would increase food security, whilst not having too negative effect on other social factors that were already declining. Hence, agriculture would be a popular idea in such a society.

Yes, but there are different limits.

The birth rate in pre-agricultural societies was restricted by the requirements of a non-sedentary lifestyle... while in agricultural societies there was, if anything, an incentive to have more children, because they provided additional labor.

Not a very good tactic, if avoiding food scarcity is your goal.Over hunting is one of the theories as to the cause of the Holocene extinction event. Doesn't really suggest that pre-agricultural societies were living within their limits or not suffering from overpopulation themselves.

If it was not for civilization you would not be sitting in a chair on your computer posting this on these forums and reading Wikipedia in an heated and cooled house.

I liked Fight Club too, but... Damn.

Civilization may be created by humans; it is not something we can choose not to have. People will form communities and one tribe will dominate the other.

We cannot return to an idealized state of nature...

We are actually learning about how agriculture started in our AP World class. One guy's theory is that it started in the Middle East. After the ice age, the animals died off, and people settled down. Instead of chasing after the animals, they brought the animals to them, and then they use wheat and barely to start agriculture, thus supporting a higher population.

it's a little bit more complicated than that. but it is true that the first evidence of plant and animal domestication come from the middle east.

If it was not for civilization you would not be sitting in a chair on your computer posting this on these forums and reading Wikipedia in an heated and cooled house.

And that is why I never take Trollgaard seriously.

Because the result of agriculture was massive decreases in health, life expectancy, leisure... virtually every indicator of quality of life.

Not to mention the radical shift in lifestyle that was required.
The adoption of agriculture in North and South America was very gradual. Domesticated crops were maybe 15-30% of the diet for at least three centuries in North America and one to two centuries in South America. The question of whether domestication and agriculture preceded the more sedentary lifestyle associated with agricultural societies or whether a sedentary lifestyle necessitated agriculture, at least in the Americas, is still unanswered, though newer dates from domesticated crops suggest that agriculture was adopted as part of a larger movement towards sedentism, not the primary force behind sedentism.


You have only shown that it began in several places.

You have not shown that it was a popular idea.
Agriculture arose in the Middle East, Southeastern North America and Central Mexico separately. Each are very divergent climates and ecosystems and the strategies necessary for agriculture in each area are so varied that I'm surprised to see you claiming some kind of uniform unpopularity.


Yes, but there are different limits.

The birth rate in pre-agricultural societies was restricted by the requirements of a non-sedentary lifestyle... while in agricultural societies there was, if anything, an incentive to have more children, because they provided additional labor.

Not a very good tactic, if avoiding food scarcity is your goal.

If agriculture forms only a small part of a group's diet, it provides a stable source in times of food stress, like winter or harsh summers. Foraging and hunting have to adapt to the movement of animals, which themselves respond to the hunter, as well as the plant growth that is affected by weather, animals, and possibly competing human groups. A controllable plant source provides stability and a dependable food source, even if it is only a small part of a group's diet.

The dominance of agriculture as a subsistence strategy isn't necessarily what lead to permanent settlement, and it even may have been a strategy necessitated by permanent settlement. Increased warfare with neighboring groups and an attachment, spiritual or ancestral, with the land may have been driving forces behind increased permanent settlement that reduced the range a group could gather, leading to the rise of agriculture. Claiming that agriculture is what lead towards more sedentary, and later more stratified society, is a bit limiting considering that prehistoric hunter-gatherers did much more than gather food.

Personly I think it is naive revolutionary thinking to suggest that civilaistion comes from the exploytation of people rather than the coming together and population growth of a peoples.

Wiki lists eight crops as 'founder crops' - Emmer wheat, Einkorn wheat, Barley, Lentils, Peas, Chickpeas, Bitter vetch, and Flax. All of which have wild variants which pre-date the advent of agriculture. Emmer wheat and Einkorn wheat are what is called relict (once widespread, but no so any more), with Bread wheat and Durum wheat making up the vast majority of production now.

right, and all the wild types are fucking awful at being food.

Perhaps you overlook other reasons for the decrease in life expectancy like the Pleistocene/Holocene extinction event which would have made hunting and gathering increasingly difficult. And by themselves would have lowered diet variety and thus health, life expectancy and leisure time.

except that the drastic crash in life expectancy hit only those groups that took up agriculture and lasted in those groups for thousands of years - until the advent of sewers and modern medicine. foraging peoples experienced no crash at all. only in the past 100 years have we in the richest agricultural societies on the planet climbed back up to their constant level (though we still work a lot more for it).

the crash in life expectancy (not to mention height and weight and general health) is due entirely to the facts of sedentary agriculture. it's a shitty diet, which is devastatingly subject to random fluctuations of the weather or the ecosystem, that makes people live where they shit for generations, next to a bunch of disease-ridden neighbors and animals, while promoting a continuous expansive growth past the limits of current capacity. it also directly leads to a tiny elite hoarding wealth and food, thus decreasing the quality of life for the vast bulk under the system even further.

Agriculture arose in the Middle East, Southeastern North America and Central Mexico separately. Each are very divergent climates and ecosystems and the strategies necessary for agriculture in each area are so varied that I'm surprised to see you claiming some kind of uniform unpopularity.

the thing is, nobody invented farming. where it originated, it was a long drawn out process that came in tolerable increments. but look what happened (and continues to happen) as fully developed agriculture spreads. nearly uniform violent opposition, ultimately requiring utter subjugation of the non-agriculturalists if not outright genocide. and even then, foragers will still try to run, ultimately winding up pushed to the most marginal fringes where agriculture is not presently possible.

Food security indeed. Hehehehehehehehe. Long and healthy lives. Mwahahahahahaha.

Well, I suppose not everyone wants to look up the fossil record to check whether these shiny claims are true.

are you claiming that you have so looked, and found the opposite? really?

the thing is, nobody invented farming. where it originated, it was a long drawn out process that came in tolerable increments. but look what happened (and continues to happen) as fully developed agriculture spreads. nearly uniform violent opposition, ultimately requiring utter subjugation of the non-agriculturalists if not outright genocide. and even then, foragers will still try to run, ultimately winding up pushed to the most marginal fringes where agriculture is not presently possible.

What time frame are you talking about here, the modern spread of mass agriculture or the spread of agriculture as it happened after its development? Maybe some illustrative examples would help, because I don't remember anything like that in prehistoric societies.

Hmm, a real primitivist on these forums? I never actually expected to see that. I suppose I'm kind of sympathetic to the idea, though I don't think it would work out these days and the price is pretty steep (sure I may get angry at my computer, but without certain technologies I probably wouldn't even be alive to day, same with my mother).

You seem to equate having wealth with having stolen it it from an enslaved underclass. This is bizarre. Wealth is achievable by all. It is called saving and investing and making positive life choices such as family planning, avoiding addicting drugs, living below your means, acquiring marketable skills, etc.

There are still plenty of fairly wild areas left in the world - get a couple friends together and head out there. Live in the wild. Take nothing with you (the benefits of civilization) aside from a small amount of food to get you started.

If you can survive out in the wild for a full year and have a relaxed lifestyle doing it, I will fully acknowledge that hunter-gatherers had an easy time of it. Farming takes work, but I find it highly dubious to say farming is the one factor that forced primitive people from relaxed and healthy lives into short miserable stressed out ones.

I suspect this is a case of confusing correlation with causation, or perhaps getting the order of causation wrong. As people get more stressed out and are no longer able to enjoy healthy lives with hunting and foraging, agriculture becomes more prevalent because of that stress. The rise of agriculture did not cause that stress, but is the response to it as a way of not dying off.

I'll take long, good life over nasty brutish and short, thank you very much.

People may have originally chosen to create, thousands of years ago, yes, but it isn't a choice anymore. People are slaves to the machine. Slaves to the grind. Civilization only benefits those in power.

We've already been over this. War and power are much older than "civilization."

Power is as simple as dominance of one organism over another. Be those organisms snakes, lions, wolves, bears, tigers, chimpanzees, gorillas or humans.

War at the most basic level is violent conflict between two groups of the same organism, usually over resources. Chimpanzees go to war over territory and systematically kill members of an opposing tribe.

You seem to think that these things are a result of civilization. They are not. Weapons of war have become more deadly through civilization, but their purpose existed long before.

Outside civilization, the law of nature is hard, fast and cruel. The strong survive, the weak die.

I prefer life with civilization. And by civilization I don't mean developed countries. I don't think there is any "uncivilized" group of humans anywhere in the world. Civilization enables me to listen to wonderful music, without which I doubt I'd much enjoy life at all. It enables me to appreciate art and to read riveting novels and enjoy stories. Though I enjoy backpacking, it is nice to be dry and warm inside a shelter when it rains and being able to crap without having to dig a hole.

I enjoy the fact that there are laws, living in constant fear that I might be killed by someone stronger than I would not be fun.

I like the idea that my lovely lady and I can make love without making another human by using contraception.

If you don't like this, then by all means, go live and die in the woods.

Points I'm responding to:
1. Free Soviets - except that the drastic crash in life expectancy hit only those groups that took up agriculture and lasted in those groups for thousands of years
2. Soheran -
I'm not an anarcho-primitivist.
3. Well, now.
It didn't at the start. Agriculture crashed it. We've been moving slowly up from that low point ever since.
4. Actually it doesn't. It just means they're producing more food than they need.
That says nothing at all about the long-term environmental impact of that food production, and whether or not it is sustainable.
It's notable, indeed, that the increased efficiency in food production--and in other kinds of production--often just seems to get us to produce more, instead of less at less cost in resources. Which poses an obvious threat to sustainability.
5. And restricted in what they do. And dependent on others to get what they need--or think they need.
This is a recipe for class society... part of the basis for the systems of hierarchy and domination that have accompanied "civilized" humanity from the start.

Responses:
1. Are you telling me that the first peoples who had subsistence agriculture lived shorter lives and less healthy ones?
They took the security of agriculture over the insecurities of hunting. Cite me a source, legitimate ones mind, that proves hunting to allow long lives, especially if you think that those lives are as long as the ones we live now. I'll like to read that.
Their shorter lives and less healthy ones were the price for security of food production.
2. Sorry then, I apologise. Perhaps you were just trying to defend their position. Must be worth a try.
3. See 1.
4. There area already programs to encourage good farming practises. Like not digging furrows in the direction of the slope, and crop rotation.
Unlike direct exploitation of resources like coal and oil, the farmers know they can reuse the land and will take care of it. All that remains is organization and freedom of infomation & technology, civilisation provides that.
5. A class society may be what's needed to get it to work. So long as the law is followed and equal chances are given to everyone, the stratification is reduced.
Check out Singapore. You could say there are classes of people there. Some people are certainly richer than others. But everyone is given a chance by the compulsory education policy.
The presence of a class society that operates by economics, ie. your standing is measured by your economic success, will provide the sufficient encouragement for the poor to succeed and try to become rich. And sufficient purpose for the rich to become richer. Progress can be acheived that way.

Even after answering this, perhaps I should not overlook the other goals that people can acheive if we are "civilised" enough. Putting the satellite network is one such example. Saving current life as we know it from a rogue meteorite could be another.
In an overall look at the world, we're doing nothing to change the world. The next ice age or nuclear war will grind our cities into nothing, may as well try to avoid as many of those as we can eh?

Enslaving myself to a primal force? The need to eat? The need to drink? The need for shelter? Aren't those the only things people should be 'enslaved' to?

And the need to fend of basic competitors from food. Or more advanced competitors that band together to smash your head and steal your food.

The problem isn't civilization. It's human nature.

We've already been over this. War and power are much older than "civilization."

Power is as simple as dominance of one organism over another. Be those organisms snakes, lions, wolves, bears, tigers, chimpanzees, gorillas or humans.

War at the most basic level is violent conflict between two groups of the same organism, usually over resources. Chimpanzees go to war over territory and systematically kill members of an opposing tribe.

You seem to think that these things are a result of civilization. They are not. Weapons of war have become more deadly through civilization, but their purpose existed long before.

Outside civilization, the law of nature is hard, fast and cruel. The strong survive, the weak die.

I prefer life with civilization. And by civilization I don't mean developed countries. I don't think there is any "uncivilized" group of humans anywhere in the world. Civilization enables me to listen to wonderful music, without which I doubt I'd much enjoy life at all. It enables me to appreciate art and to read riveting novels and enjoy stories. Though I enjoy backpacking, it is nice to be dry and warm inside a shelter when it rains and being able to crap without having to dig a hole.

I enjoy the fact that there are laws, living in constant fear that I might be killed by someone stronger than I would not be fun.

I like the idea that my lovely lady and I can make love without making another human by using contraception.

If you don't like this, then by all means, go live and die in the woods.
*Applauds* Well said, Calisdrun, well said, now let's see how (and if) Trollgaard responds to that.



Trollgaard, nature is all about survival of the fittest, but at least human civilization tries to establish standards of rights and/or ethics, depending on the society, and humanity has accomplished a lot collectively in a level of constant change unique to it. You claim that civilization is based on fossil fuels, but as others have pointed out that was only relatively recently, and perhaps civilization itself can get us out of this dependency. As Hydesland pointed out, many of the things you associate with civilization aren't inherent in civilization, but let's look more specifically at an example like imperialism; it's considered "uncivilized" more so recently than before, because of progress, which in turn is because of civilization. The primitive anarchism you describe would consist of life being a daily struggle only for looking for food and water, which seems like a rather pointless existance compared to humanity looking for a greater meaning; one has to wonder if we'd even be thinking about these kinds of things without civilization... as was already pointed out to you, you're talking about this using the Internet which is a product OF civilization.

You ask what gives us the right to kill off animals. What gives these animals the right to kill each other, let alone the weakest of them? Animals are cruel to animals yet it's somehow worse when humans are. You acknowledge that technology has brought along medical advances, and these medical advances include things that help the weak. Compare this to nature which is just survival of the fittest, and you can see that civilization is superior when it comes to justice; at least with civilization, who DESERVES what is more of an issue than it is with the wild with its opportunism. You claim that civilization itself is past the carrying capacity of this planet, but perhaps appeal to civilization could some day bring us behind that carrying capacity? By pointing out, perhaps, that within animals they live to reproduce, and that it's because we're humans that we shouldn't? I'd much rather decrease the birth rate than increase the death rate, as far as I'm concerned avoiding the latter IS the purpose of the former.

As Soheran pointed out, civilization itself can help us get out of the problems even that it supposedly created. Why would we turn back now after the incredible progress that we've made, with the unique condition of humanity, especially now that we have the ability to realize all these things that we couldn't have if primitive? Even if it is a struggle, Trollgaard, do you propose that we just give up? Perhaps we are fighting nature, can't help but agree to some extent there, (if the term nature has legitimate meaning; if humans are part of nature, then since we developed civilization and technology perhaps they are natural as well) but what I've pointed out already in this post shows that nature is an unjust foe and to give in to it would be cowardly.

For that matter, though, one could consider your inconsisency cowardly. You condemn civilization through a means developed from it, and yet you don't seem willing to abandon it. If you don't like civilization, how about you just leave it? Go into the wild, and see how you do. And if you can't do that, then please, lay off the misanthropic horse shit.

We've already been over this. War and power are much older than "civilization."

Power is as simple as dominance of one organism over another. Be those organisms snakes, lions, wolves, bears, tigers, chimpanzees, gorillas or humans.

War at the most basic level is violent conflict between two groups of the same organism, usually over resources. Chimpanzees go to war over territory and systematically kill members of an opposing tribe.

You seem to think that these things are a result of civilization. They are not. Weapons of war have become more deadly through civilization, but their purpose existed long before.

Outside civilization, the law of nature is hard, fast and cruel. The strong survive, the weak die.

I prefer life with civilization. And by civilization I don't mean developed countries. I don't think there is any "uncivilized" group of humans anywhere in the world. Civilization enables me to listen to wonderful music, without which I doubt I'd much enjoy life at all. It enables me to appreciate art and to read riveting novels and enjoy stories. Though I enjoy backpacking, it is nice to be dry and warm inside a shelter when it rains and being able to crap without having to dig a hole.

I enjoy the fact that there are laws, living in constant fear that I might be killed by someone stronger than I would not be fun.

I like the idea that my lovely lady and I can make love without making another human by using contraception.

If you don't like this, then by all means, go live and die in the woods.

Have you ever studied cultures before civilization? Usually warfare was very ritualized and relatively non-lethal. Power existed yes, but was it ever concentrated in such away that so few receive so much? Hunter-gatherer societies believed in household autonomy. There were leaders, yes, but people did not follow the leader blindly. People listened to the leader, and if they agreed with what the leader said they followed it, if not, the left or chose not to follow it.

As I said earlier, civilization has caused more harm to organisms than its medicine has cured. In many places water is polluted and cannot be used without being purified. Land is polluted. Even the air is polluted! Not to mention our bodies are polluted from breathing and drinking contaminated air and water, not to mention foods.

Don't get me wrong, I love music, especially heavy metal, but I'll sacrifice it in order to have a LIVABLE planet.

Hunter-gather societies had social rules as well. If somebody was caused great harm to the group, or killed someone else within the group, the offender would be banished or perhaps killed, so you don't need to worry that someone will come along and murder you.

So, you are worried about too many kids. 'Primitive' societies knew thousands of plants to use, many of which cause and abortion, so too many people will not be around to consume resources. Also, women breast fed children to later into life, which caused women to be less fertile while breast feeding. Australian aboriginal women generally had children ever 4-8 years. The aborigines managed to maintain a stable population in Australia without devastating their environment for over 50,000 years.

I will not be the only one to live and die in the woods. Once this oil based civilization crashes we will live and die in the woods, as we did for majority of human history.

*Applauds* Well said, Calisdrun, well said, now let's see how (and if) Trollgaard responds to that.



Trollgaard, nature is all about survival of the fittest, but at least human civilization tries to establish standards of rights and/or ethics, depending on the society, and humanity has accomplished a lot collectively in a level of constant change unique to it. You claim that civilization is based on fossil fuels, but as others have pointed out that was only relatively recently, and perhaps civilization itself can get us out of this dependency. As Hydesland pointed out, many of the things you associate with civilization aren't inherent in civilization, but let's look more specifically at an example like imperialism; it's considered "uncivilized" more so recently than before, because of progress, which in turn is because of civilization. The primitive anarchism you describe would consist of life being a daily struggle only for looking for food and water, which seems like a rather pointless existance compared to humanity looking for a greater meaning; one has to wonder if we'd even be thinking about these kinds of things without civilization... as was already pointed out to you, you're talking about this using the Internet which is a product OF civilization.

You ask what gives us the right to kill off animals. What gives these animals the right to kill each other, let alone the weakest of them? Animals are cruel to animals yet it's somehow worse when humans are. You acknowledge that technology has brought along medical advances, and these medical advances include things that help the weak. Compare this to nature which is just survival of the fittest, and you can see that civilization is superior when it comes to justice; at least with civilization, who DESERVES what is more of an issue than it is with the wild with its opportunism. You claim that civilization itself is past the carrying capacity of this planet, but perhaps appeal to civilization could some day bring us behind that carrying capacity? By pointing out, perhaps, that within animals they live to reproduce, and that it's because we're humans that we shouldn't? I'd much rather decrease the birth rate than increase the death rate, as far as I'm concerned avoiding the latter IS the purpose of the former.

As Soheran pointed out, civilization itself can help us get out of the problems even that it supposedly created. Why would we turn back now after the incredible progress that we've made, with the unique condition of humanity, especially now that we have the ability to realize all these things that we couldn't have if primitive? Even if it is a struggle, Trollgaard, do you propose that we just give up? Perhaps we are fighting nature, can't help but agree to some extent there, (if the term nature has legitimate meaning; if humans are part of nature, then since we developed civilization and technology perhaps they are natural as well) but what I've pointed out already in this post shows that nature is an unjust foe and to give in to it would be cowardly.

For that matter, though, one could consider your inconsisency cowardly. You condemn civilization through a means developed from it, and yet you don't seem willing to abandon it. If you don't like civilization, how about you just leave it? Go into the wild, and see how you do. And if you can't do that, then please, lay off the misanthropic horse shit.

To give up on civilization would be cowardly!? To let the force that is killing the oceans, deforesting the world, polluting the air and water, exploiting humans and non-humans around the world continue would be cowardly! Letting civilization continue on its path of destruction, THAT would be cowardly. Trying end civilization is the duty of everyone that claims to love and respect life.

Chew on that before accusing people of being cowards.


Also, civilization by definition is not sustainable. It is every expanding, ever consuming more and more of the world. Even before oil was the primary source of energy civilization was unsustainable. Look at the forests of the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas...oh wait, the forests of the Middle East are gone, and the forests of Europe and the Americas are shells of their former glory and majesty.

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?

I'll stick with civilization, because, frankly, the alternative is entirely undesirable.

Civilization is a result of surplus (and therefore security and confidence), primitivism is the result of scarcity. I don't know about you, but I'll opt for surplus and security.

Civilization will follow from surplus, because surplus allows for us to be social, it allows for creativity and the stimulation of the brain and it allows for more of us to be born. Civilization, in an environment of anarchy, is inevitable.

You merely propose that we sacrifice billions to begin the cycle over again.

oh please. You want to go without civilization? Go grab your naturalist friends and pull a Thoreau. Nothing's stopping you, nothing's holding you back, go pool your money and go buy some woods in it and live as nature dictates.

Go.

Go!

But don't presume to tell the rest of us how to live. Our great ancestors figured out civilization for a reason. Because the alternative sucks ass. And don't whine about the evils of civilization while utilizing perhaps the most powerful development of such, the internet.

Civilization is a result of surplus (and therefore security and confidence), primitivism is the result of scarcity. I don't know about you, but I'll opt for surplus and security.

Civilization will follow from surplus, because surplus allows for us to be social, it allows for creativity and the stimulation of the brain and it allows for more of us to be born. Civilization, in an environment of anarchy, is inevitable.

You merely propose that we sacrifice billions to begin the cycle over again.

If civilization is a result of surplus how come millions, if not billions of people go hungry? How come thousands of people die every day because of hunger?

oh please. You want to go without civilization? Go grab your naturalist friends and pull a Thoreau. Nothing's stopping you, nothing's holding you back, go pool your money and go buy some woods in it and live as nature dictates.

Go.

Go!

But don't presume to tell the rest of us how to live. Our great ancestors figured out civilization for a reason. Because the alternative sucks ass. And don't whine about the evils of civilization while utilizing perhaps the most powerful development of such, the internet.

I am going, but before I do I wanted try to spread the message. If you refuse then fine. You'll be that much more unprepared for the fall.

If civilization is a result of surplus how come millions, if not billions of people go hungry? How come thousands of people die every day because of hunger?

You're making my argument for me. This is because development and resource distribution is not geographically universal. Where we see the most development, we see the most surplus, where we see the least development we see the least surplus.

The early industrializers, Europe and the US, are the richest.

If civilization is a result of surplus how come millions, if not billions of people go hungry? How come thousands of people die every day because of hunger?

Riddle me this. Where are there the most deaths, per capita due to hunger, America or Zimbabwe?

If civilization is a result of surplus how come millions, if not billions of people go hungry? How come thousands of people die every day because of hunger?

Because they're living in areas that quite frankly don't qualify as civilization.

You're making my argument for me. This is because development and resource distribution is not geographically universal. Where we see the most development, we see the most surplus, where we see the least development we see the least surplus.

The early industrializers, Europe and the US, are the richest.

And just how is the surplus generated? By the use of agricultural techniques based on the use of oil and poison. When oil runs how, or ever begins to get scarce, how much longer do you think there will be a surplus?

Hunter-gatherers rarely went hungry, as their diet was more diverse than civilized people's diet. If one of their food sources was scarce one year, they simply chose another.

And just how is the surplus generated? By the use of agricultural techniques based on the use of oil and poison.
You have no fucking clue how agriculture works, do you. Oil's been in use for several hundred years. Insecticides, less than that. On the other hand, there have been surpluses ever since the beginning of agriculture.

And just how is the surplus generated? By the use of agricultural techniques based on the use of oil and poison. When oil runs how, or ever begins to get scarce, how much longer do you think there will be a surplus?

so in other words you realized your own argument was bullshit and tried to back away from it? God man, THINK before talking.

Hunter-gatherers rarely went hungry

That's absolute bullshit. You know why hunter gatherers rarely went hungry? Because their population was self regulating. If it grew too big, they started running out of food, and people starved to death. Hunter gatherers had food because if they didn't have food, they died, and reduced their numbers to manageable levels again.

Riddle me this. Where are there the most deaths, per capita due to hunger, America or Zimbabwe?

zimbabwe


i'm just guessing, i haven't actually researched it :D

Hunter-gatherers rarely went hungry, as their diet was more diverse than civilized people's diet. If one of their food sources was scarce one year, they simply chose another.

Oh, bullshit. You don't pick and choose as a hunter-gatherer, you work with what you have when it's available. Unless you practice horticulture and animal husbandry, you'll have to keep very mobile in an area of several dozen square miles just to feed a group of 50-100. You have to hunt animals that are not only competing with you for plants, but also changing their patterns of movement to avoid your hunters. Finally, you have to be able to store enough food while supporting this highly mobile lifestyle to last through winter or summer, depending on which is worse in whatever part of the world you live in.

That's all without considering how unbalanced your diet will be if you don't control your food sources. Try keeping a balance of protein, cholesterol, fats, carbohydrates, starches, and oils when your only food sources are uncontrolled and you can't preserve anything but lean meats and dry seeds and nuts for more than a few days. Have you even studied anthropology to learn about hunter-gatherers or is all your primitivist bullshit based in some supermarket view of nature?

That's absolute bullshit. You know why hunter gatherers rarely went hungry? Because their population was self regulating. If it grew too big, they started running out of food, and people starved to death. Hunter gatherers had food because if they didn't have food, they died, and reduced their numbers to manageable levels again.

and when you got small populations you begin fucking your cousins

and when you got small populations you begin fucking your cousins

And when people start to figure out that they're one bad hunting season away from total annihilation, they tend to try to find solutions out of that.

You have no fucking clue how agriculture works, do you. Oil's been in use for several hundred years. Insecticides, less than that. On the other hand, there have been surpluses ever since the beginning of agriculture.

And look what is happening to agricultural land. It is being ruined. Each years tons of topsoil are lost. It become less fertile and requires more and more energy input to become productive.
Yes, agriculture allows for more food to be produced and consumed. I really don't think anybody is arguing that isn't. If you thought I was, you read wrong. Agriculture, on a subsitance level is not wrong if managed properly (how tribes in the amazon do it). Agriculture allows those in power to control and exploit the labor of those who are not farmers (ie pretty much everyone on earth today) by controlling the food supply. This is as true now as it was thousands of years ago in the beginning of civilization.

There are forms of agriculture that are sustainable (how the tribes in the amazon do it, how the chinese did it for thousands of years {although the chinese were exploited by Lords and Emperors for their entire history}), and there is nothing wrong with them, unless the fruits of are used by rulers to control and exploit people. Today's agriculture, however, is not sustainable, and will fail...which how the population will fall. I don't think that is very hard to understand.

Are you telling me that the first peoples who had subsistence agriculture lived shorter lives and less healthy ones?

yes. comparisons between the skeletons of foragers and the farmers who followed them in the same area consistently show that foragers were taller, stronger, less disease-ridden, and tended to actually live longer.

They took the security of agriculture over the insecurities of hunting.

not according to the evidence. really its sort of a fluke that happens to lead to higher birthrates and can support more people per square mile, and therefore once started just sort of runs away, no matter how shitty it is in comparison to measures other than total number of individuals possible.

Cite me a source, legitimate ones mind, that proves hunting to allow long lives, especially if you think that those lives are as long as the ones we live now. I'll like to read that.

i'll log in for access to real journal articles later maybe (or i could try digging out my copy of the columbia encyclopedia of hunters and gatherers), but people have always maxed out about the same age until very very recently.

And look what is happening to agricultural land. It is being ruined. Each years tons of topsoil are lost. It become less fertile and requires more and more energy input to become productive.
Yes, agriculture allows for more food to be produced and consumed. I really don't think anybody is arguing that isn't. If you thought I was, you read wrong. Agriculture, on a subsitance level is not wrong if managed properly (how tribes in the amazon do it). Agriculture allows those in power to control and exploit the labor of those who are not farmers (ie pretty much everyone on earth today) by controlling the food supply. This is as true now as it was thousands of years ago in the beginning of civilization.

And your solution, instead of being "hey, let's see if we can find a solution to this" is "hey, let's let billion of people starve to death!" And if you think it's the farmers who are exploiting the non farmers you're more dillusional than I thought.

You know what shit it is to be a farmer in america today?

And when people start to figure out that they're one bad hunting season away from total annihilation, they tend to try to find solutions out of that.

I wish i knew what that meant. I was just supporting your argument.

Hey, do you believe in technology?

Oh, bullshit. You don't pick and choose as a hunter-gatherer, you work with what you have when it's available. Unless you practice horticulture and animal husbandry, you'll have to keep very mobile in an area of several dozen square miles just to feed a group of 50-100. You have to hunt animals that are not only competing with you for plants, but also changing their patterns of movement to avoid your hunters. Finally, you have to be able to store enough food while supporting this highly mobile lifestyle to last through winter or summer, depending on which is worse in whatever part of the world you live in.

That's all without considering how unbalanced your diet will be if you don't control your food sources. Try keeping a balance of protein, cholesterol, fats, carbohydrates, starches, and oils when your only food sources are uncontrolled and you can't preserve anything but lean meats and dry seeds and nuts for more than a few days. Have you even studied anthropology to learn about hunter-gatherers or is all your primitivist bullshit based in some supermarket view of nature?

You agreed with my statement that hunter-gathers ate a variety of foods. Thus, I guess I should have stated this, although it should be gleaned from the previous sentence, that they were not dependent on a few species of plants and animals to survive, as they ate just about everything that is able to be eaten.

And yes I have studied anthropology, ass. I was going to major in it, but now I think I may minor it.

You agreed with my statement that hunter-gathers ate a variety of foods. Thus, I guess I should have stated this, although it should be gleaned from the previous sentence, that they were not dependent on a few species of plants and animals to survive, as they ate just about everything that is able to be eaten.

And yes I have studied anthropology, ass. I was going to major in it, but now I think I may minor it.

lol, your use of "ass" made me chuckle


i think now you're pissed :)

I wish i knew what that meant. I was just supporting your argument.

It means that a civilization-less existance is inherently self defeating, since once people realize just how fucking miserable and hard life is in such a state, they tend to find ways of correcting that, resulting in, ta da! civilization!

What is it that Hobbes said, absent civilization the life of man is "nasty poor brutish and short"?

so in other words you realized your own argument was bullshit and tried to back away from it? God man, THINK before talking.



That's absolute bullshit. You know why hunter gatherers rarely went hungry? Because their population was self regulating. If it grew too big, they started running out of food, and people starved to death. Hunter gatherers had food because if they didn't have food, they died, and reduced their numbers to manageable levels again.

Exactly! Their population was self-regulating and SUSTAINABLE! How hard is it to understand?! If your population is sustainable nobody goes hungry! Sometimes, I'd imagine, population did grow too large, but as you said, the population then falls to bring the population back into equilibrium with nature.

And yes I have studied anthropology, ass. I was going to major in it, but now I think I may minor it.

When I was young I wanted to be in anthropology, untill my dad told me that that there were like no careers in it. Now I want to be in International Relations.

Hey, do you believe in technology?

No.

Your response: Get off the internet.

Like I've said before: I am going to. I wanted to try to warn people, and try to open their eyes to the evils of civilization. If you don't agree, fine, I tried.

Exactly! Their population was self-regulating and SUSTAINABLE! How hard is it to understand?! If your population is sustainable nobody goes hungry! Sometimes, I'd imagine, population did grow too large, but as you said, the population then falls to bring the population back into equilibrium with nature.

No, it's you who doesn't understand. Yes, the population did grow too large, all the time. And yes, when it grew too large as it frequently did, it did fall down again to equilibrium.

It did so by people STARVING TO DEATH. Your whole..."theory" is nothing more than the slow, aggonizing, torturous death of millions. For generation upon generation.

You advocate a slow and torturous death of millions.

At risk of godwinning this thread, and this is something I rarely say, congratulations, you're worse than hitler.

It means that a civilization-less existance is inherently self defeating, since once people realize just how fucking miserable and hard life is in such a state, they tend to find ways of correcting that, resulting in, ta da! civilization!

What is it that Hobbes said, absent civilization the life of man is "nasty poor brutish and short"?

A lie. Non-civilized societies (traditional societies) are generally quite friendly and open. Each member helps their group survive, and all members are valued.

Many times traditional people are too friendly for their own good, at least when civilization comes. Example: the Native Americans who helped the Pilgrims survive their first few years in the New World. The Native Americans showered them with gifts of food, and knowledge of how to survive. How did the 'civilized' respond? Genocide and theft.

A lie. Non-civilized societies (traditional societies) are generally quite friendly and open. Each member helps their group survive, and all members are valued.

Many times traditional people are too friendly for their own good, at least when civilization comes. Example: the Native Americans who helped the Pilgrims survive their first few years in the New World. The Native Americans showered them with gifts of food, and knowledge of how to survive. How did the 'civilized' respond? Genocide and theft.

Your premise is that the native americans were uncivilized? How disgusting.

You agreed with my statement that hunter-gathers ate a variety of foods. Thus, I guess I should have stated this, although it should be gleaned from the previous sentence, that they were not dependent on a few species of plants and animals to survive, as they ate just about everything that is able to be eaten.

And yes I have studied anthropology, ass. I was going to major in it, but now I think I may minor it.

They ate a variety of foods, but not consistently. Hunter-gatherers that actually survived for longer than a generation only did so by learning the places that a few key staple foods could be found and continuously exploiting those areas using a settlement pattern that rotated sites yearly. This lifestyle restricted diet to a few plants, maybe two or three game animals, and possibly fish if the terrain allowed. The key to a successful hunter-gatherer lifestyle was sacrificing variety for stability. If you try to go back to that lifestyle, you'll lose much of the variety civilization offers.

Even if you have studied anthropology, your call to primitivism sure doesn't show any signs of it. You should know hunter-gatherers lived hard lives full of injuries, warfare, and food supplies that limited world population through starvation. They weren't anymore harmonious with nature or each other than modern humans, they were simply limited by means. Please, at least stick with the field until you find time to study prehistoric interactions like trade in exotic goods and warfare. They give a much better understanding of hunter-gatherers than primitivist bullshit.

You don't believe destruction is inherent in civilization. Have you been sleeping the last 6000 years? Look around. Every culture that didn't want to be a part of civilization was destroyed and assimilated. Non-human life is enslaved or destroyed. Even humans are enslaved and destroyed.


Not true.


Climate change is not 100% certain? My ass its not. Climate always changes, humans are changing it faster, along with producing massive amounts of pollution, and killing off life.

With hard core science like that, why do we bother to pay those greedy professionals! :rolleyes:

No, it's you who doesn't understand. Yes, the population did grow too large, all the time. And yes, when it grew too large as it frequently did, it did fall down again to equilibrium.

It did so by people STARVING TO DEATH. Your whole..."theory" is nothing more than the slow, aggonizing, torturous death of millions. For generation upon generation.

You advocate a slow and torturous death of millions.

At risk of godwinning this thread, and this is something I rarely say, congratulations, you're worse than hitler.

Wow. I'm trying to stop the world from being destroyed by pollution and people from being enslaved and exploited. And I get called worse than Hitler. You have some issues. The world is over populated as it is. People are going to die whether start changing now, or if we continue on this insane ride called civilization. The point is billions are going to die either way, but if we start changing now more people will be ready for the fall, and perhaps the population will start falling through reduced birthrates, but hey, I'm worse than Hitler because I want a sustainable world where non-human life isn't being driven to extinction, a world where the water, air, and food is clean and un-polluted.

Get real.

A lie. Non-civilized societies (traditional societies) are generally quite friendly and open. Each member helps their group survive, and all members are valued.

Many times traditional people are too friendly for their own good, at least when civilization comes. Example: the Native Americans who helped the Pilgrims survive their first few years in the New World. The Native Americans showered them with gifts of food, and knowledge of how to survive. How did the 'civilized' respond? Genocide and theft.

The Amerindians had a civilization themselves, which you'd know if you weren't so goddamn Eurocentric. The sheer arrogance astounds me.

Well, several dozen civilizations, actually.

Your premise is that the native americans were uncivilized? How disgusting.

Well, sense I have defined civilization as a system that destroys the environment, and is based of slavery and exploitation, then I would view it as disgusting if I did label them as civilized.

The Amerindians had a civilization themselves, which you'd know if you weren't so goddamn Eurocentric. The sheer arrogance astounds me.

Well, several dozen civilizations, actually.

Holy fuck! They have their own society yes, but civilization as commonly defined has cities, trade, commerce.

Well, the Aztecs, Mayans, Olmecs, and Incans were civilized yes. With all its great benefits such as slavery, large scale warfare, disease, exploitation, and environmental degradation.

Holy fuck! They have their own society yes, but civilization as commonly defined has cities, trade, commerce.

And guess what? They had that.

Well, sense I have defined civilization as a system that destroys the environment, and is based of slavery and exploitation, then I would view it as disgusting if I did label them as civilized.

I'm going to start a movement against ice cream. I think we should get rid of all ice cream.

Of course, I'm going to define "ice cream" as "evil murdering system that destroys the environment, and is based of slavery and exploitation"

And guess what? They had that.

No wai!

Holy fuck! They have their own society yes, but civilization as commonly defined has cities, trade, commerce.

Well, the Aztecs, Mayans, Olmecs, and Incans were civilized yes. With all its great benefits such as slavery, large scale warfare, disease, exploitation, and environmental degradation.

They did the whole city, trade, and commerce thing, along with feasting, monumental construction, and eventually agriculture. They also had disease, warfare, human sacrifice, and as much exploitation of the environment as they could manage.

To give up on civilization would be cowardly!? To let the force that is killing the oceans, deforesting the world, polluting the air and water, exploiting humans and non-humans around the world continue would be cowardly!
:headbang:

Oh so it's because we're "civilized" that we're doing this? So you're implying that deforestation, which decreases the oxygen concentration for other people, is civilized? Are you just IGNORING my points, and those of others about what's wrong with associating all of that with civilization, or did my points among those of others just not register in your mind because you're so hell-bent on basing all this on YOUR "meaning" of civilization?

I repeat: As Hydesland has pointed out, many of the things you associate with civilization aren't inherent in civilization. As Soheran pointed out, civilization itself can help get us out of the problems that it supposedly created. As I myself pointed out, civilization brings out discussion of these kinds of issues through the means that you use because of the unique sense of ethics one wouldn't see in the incredible opportunism of the wild.

Look at the forests of the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas...oh wait, the forests of the Middle East are gone, and the forests of Europe and the Americas are shells of their former glory and majesty.
Not that I'd even close to agree with your implying that somehow having more trees around would somehow be some kind of substitute for the kind of progress humanity has made not only with regards to technology but with regards to social justice as well, (or with medical advancements, for an example of how the two can go hand-in-hand) but civilization doesn't mean we can't find some sort of STANDARDS on sustainability (such as, through civilization) like let's say those who destroy so many trees have to contribute in some way to growing that many trees elsewhere...

It means that a civilization-less existance is inherently self defeating, since once people realize just how fucking miserable and hard life is in such a state, they tend to find ways of correcting that, resulting in, ta da! civilization!

What is it that Hobbes said, absent civilization the life of man is "nasty poor brutish and short"?

True that,

Hey. What about dyalisis patients that need technology or proplr who are on oxygen? How will they survive without civilization or technology?

True that,

Hey. What about dyalisis patients that need technology or proplr who are on oxygen? How will they survive without civilization or technology?

That's the part about primitivism that makes it hard to swallow, and in the end largely suicidal. In order to return to a hunter-gatherer state for humanity, most of the world's population will die, likely in the order of five billion. You'd have to get rid of every advance made since agriculture, which pretty much just leaves clothing, shelter, spears, and maybe items woven from plans. So, patients like that are pretty much fucked.

And just how is the surplus generated? By the use of agricultural techniques based on the use of oil and poison. When oil runs how, or ever begins to get scarce, how much longer do you think there will be a surplus?

Hunter-gatherers rarely went hungry, as their diet was more diverse than civilized people's diet. If one of their food sources was scarce one year, they simply chose another.

You're missing the point. I'm arguing that a hunter-gatherer society will eventually develop sufficient surplus that it will re-evolve into civilization. Given the anarchic nature of what you propose, there will be no structures to prevent the re-evolution of civilization, and as such, I would deem it pointless.

Currently the challenges faced by our energy demands will be confronted as they always have, we'll find new stuff. The transition to new sources will be painful and costly, in the industrialized world we will likely have a temporary retraction in our quality of life in the form of limited increased scarcity, but we will rebound. Anyways, such a transition will be nowhere near as costly in human lives as what you propose.

:headbang:

Oh so it's because we're "civilized" that we're doing this? So you're implying that deforestation, which decreases the oxygen concentration for other people, is civilized? Are you just IGNORING my points, and those of others about what's wrong with associating all of that with civilization, or did my points among those of others just not register in your mind because you're so hell-bent on basing all this on YOUR "meaning" of civilization?

I repeat: As Hydesland has pointed out, many of the things you associate with civilization aren't inherent in civilization. As Soheran pointed out, civilization itself can help get us out of the problems that it supposedly created. As I myself pointed out, civilization brings out discussion of these kinds of issues through the means that you use because of the unique sense of ethics one wouldn't see in the incredible opportunism of the wild.


Not that I'd even close to agree with your implying that somehow having more trees around would somehow be some kind of substitute for the kind of progress humanity has made not only with regards to technology but with regards to social justice as well, (or with medical advancements, for an example of how the two can go hand-in-hand) but civilization doesn't mean we can't find some sort of STANDARDS on sustainability (such as, through civilization) like let's say those who destroy so many trees have to contribute in some way to growing that many trees elsewhere...

When you look at what civilization has done historically it becomes evident that destruction of the natural world, enslavement of humans and nonhumans, and exploitation are inherent qualities.

What good is technology when the world is dead? Would you want to live in a dead world where only technologies keeps mankind from dying?

Every group of people has its own justice. To assume hunter-gathers, past, present, or future don't is folly. They may not have it written down, but its there. Oh and it is more than just planting trees. It is keeping the forests alive an healthy. A tree farm is not a forest.

That's the part about primitivism that makes it hard to swallow, and in the end largely suicidal. In order to return to a hunter-gatherer state for humanity, most of the world's population will die, likely in the order of five billion. You'd have to get rid of every advance made since agriculture, which pretty much just leaves clothing, shelter, spears, and maybe items woven from plans. So, patients like that are pretty much fucked.

Far, far more than five billion. Without agriculture, without our technology, the carrying capacity for humanity would likely be on the order of half a billion, maybe less.

That's the part about primitivism that makes it hard to swallow, and in the end largely suicidal. In order to return to a hunter-gatherer state for humanity, most of the world's population will die, likely in the order of five billion. You'd have to get rid of every advance made since agriculture, which pretty much just leaves clothing, shelter, spears, and maybe items woven from plans. So, patients like that are pretty much fucked.

The population is going to crash anyway. When it does, what is the harm in trying to live sustainably so it doesn't crash again? Oh, and without civilization and its pollutants there would not be so many damned diseases. Look at the fossils, as another poster (Soheren, maybe?) stated hunter-gatherers were larger and healthier than 'civilized'.

Spears and hide clothing have been around since before mankind. The Neaderthals had both, and many other hominids used spears.

The population is going to crash anyway.
Got any evidence of that?

I'm not as misanthropic as you, so no thanks.

And that is bad? Since when do we need billions of people crowding the earth, consuming everything, and driving all other life into extinction?

Because if you think that killing over 6 billion people is a good thing, you're the single most despicable human who has ever lived.

Far, far more than five billion. Without agriculture, without our technology, the carrying capacity for humanity would likely be on the order of half a billion, maybe less.

And that is bad? Since when do we need billions of people crowding the earth, consuming everything, and driving all other life into extinction?

Because if you think that killing over 6 billion people is a good thing, you're the single most despicable human who has ever lived.

WTF!

DID I FUCKING SAY KILL THEM?!

Are you blind? I never said go that we should exterminate 6 billion people. I said as the population is going to crash whether we want it to or not.

Why? As I've said before, this civilization is based on oil, and is unsustainable. Everything is based on oil, even agriculture, the thing that allowed people to jump from 2 billion in 1900 to over 6 billion today. Once oil declines and eventually runs out agriculture won't be able to feed everyone, so people will die.

Are you blind? I never said go that we should exterminate 6 billion people. I said as the population is going to crash whether we want it to or not.

Why? As I've said before, this civilization is based on oil, and is unsustainable. Everything is based on oil, even agriculture, the thing that allowed people to jump from 2 billion in 1900 to over 6 billion today. Once oil declines and eventually runs out agriculture won't be able to feed everyone, so people will die.

No, it's not based on oil. Seriously, what the fuck? Where did you get the fucking stupid idea that it was based on oil?! It's based on energy, and oil's not the only goddamn way to get energy. It's not even the best.

No, it's not based on oil. Seriously, what the fuck? Where did you get the fucking stupid idea that it was based on oil?! It's based on energy, and oil's not the only goddamn way to get energy. It's not even the best.

Are you fucking serious?

Everything is based on oil, especially modern agriculture. What do you think runs the massive combines? Love? Pesticides create energy to make, and most energy around the world is provided by oil and coal, thus usustainable. Also, how does food get to the cities? Transportation is based on oil. Without oil the system crashes. Food can't be grown in large enough qualities without the massive input of energy, and most energy is provided by OIL. Food can't be transported without oil. So, with less food, and no way to transport it, how do you think people and countries reliant on food imports and distribution will get food? The answer is they won't.

Are you fucking serious?

Are you? Because you're showing a gross misunderstanding of how things work. We don't need oil. We haven't needed it since we went nuclear. The only reason we've been using it is out of habit and laziness. When it's gone, we'll switch over to something else. And if it lasts until 2050, the question of energy will be rendered forever moot.

Are you? Because you're showing a gross misunderstanding of how things work. We don't need oil. We haven't needed it since we went nuclear. The only reason we've been using it is out of habit and laziness. When it's gone, we'll switch over to something else. And if it lasts until 2050, the question of energy will be rendered forever moot.

Ugh, sorry to play devils advocate, but currently we need oil. Theres no such thing as nuclear powered combine harvesters...

Ugh, sorry to play devils advocate, but currently we need oil. Theres no such thing as nuclear powered combine harvesters...

No, but there are electric powered ones.

I'm worse than Hitler because I want a sustainable world where non-human life isn't being driven to extinction, a world where the water, air, and food is clean and un-polluted.


whats your real life plan to accomplish this goal?

No, but there are electric powered ones.

I don't think so. *googles*

I don't think so. *googles*

Even if there aren't, they can be made easily.

Why? As I've said before, this civilization is based on oil, and is unsustainable. Everything is based on oil, even agriculture, the thing that allowed people to jump from 2 billion in 1900 to over 6 billion today. Once oil declines and eventually runs out agriculture won't be able to feed everyone, so people will die.

No, it's dependent on ammonia, which is currently made from natural gas. It's also dependent on phosphates, which are recyclable and abundant. Aside from the fact that natural gas is massively abundant, mostly unexploited and undiscovered, easily produced and will last us for a very long time, oil is almost entirely used on the production side of things and so has little impact on agriculture. And of the world's entire oil supply, only 11% is used in heavy duty transportation and things like machinery. So, that entire infrastructure requires only a fraction of the amount consumed.

Lastly, organic farming is highly productive, even as much or moreso than conventional farming techniques. The only reason we use petrochemicals is because they're economically cheaper than the alternatives. And if we include GM foods, perennialization, permaculture, and greater use of natural fertilizers, the problem becomes trivial.

Oil can be replaced in every single role it currently fulfills. The only reason we use it is because it's cheaper and easier to produce than other sources.

Are you? Because you're showing a gross misunderstanding of how things work. We don't need oil. We haven't needed it since we went nuclear. The only reason we've been using it is out of habit and laziness. When it's gone, we'll switch over to something else. And if it lasts until 2050, the question of energy will be rendered forever moot.

Ha! We don't need oil! I agree! However, this economy and this civilization do need it! Did you read anything I said? Food production is now based on oil. Transportation is based on oil. Once oil starts becoming scarce food prices will rise. Food production will fall, prices go higher, and people starve.

Nuclear energy. Yes, it exists, but how much of the world's energy is produced using nuclear power? Nuclear power isn't even safe, as the waste has to go somewhere! How fast can a nuclear power plant be built? Furthermore, do you want nuclear power plants all over the world? Would you want one in your backyard?

Ugh, sorry to play devils advocate, but currently we need oil. Theres no such thing as nuclear powered combine harvesters...

Oil use in the productive side of agriculture, industry, and commerce are trivial compared to the amount used in personal transportation. Light duty vehicles consume the vast majority of transportation fuels and total oil demand.

Ha! We don't need oil! I agree! However, this economy and this civilization do need it! Did you read anything I said? Food production is now based on oil. Transportation is based on oil. Once oil starts becoming scarce food prices will rise. Food production will fall, prices go higher, and people starve.
You'd have a point if what you said was even remotely accurate.

Nuclear energy. Yes, it exists, but how much of the world's energy is produced using nuclear power? Nuclear power isn't even safe, as the waste has to go somewhere! How fast can a nuclear power plant be built? Furthermore, do you want nuclear power plants all over the world? Would you want one in your backyard?
Nuclear power's a damn sight safer than oil, and in forty years, it'll be safer than everything else. And I'm fine with a nuclear power plant in my backyard.

Even if there aren't, they can be made easily.

I don't think batteries of such power exist. An electric car is currently pushing the limit of how much a rechargeable cell can take, at our current level of technology an electric combine harvester doesn't sound feasible. Also, hypothetically charging up machines like this use up just as much, if not more resources.

whats your real life plan to accomplish this goal?

Well basically to try to weather the storm by leaving civilization, after trying to warn as many people as possible. Now, many may discard me as they always discard people saying that something bad is going to happen, but hey, I've got to try.

There are also ways to bring civilization down faster, which if you want to know about read some of the books I listed in my OP.

Oil use in the productive side of agriculture, industry, and commerce are trivial compared to the amount used in personal transportation. Light duty vehicles consume the vast majority of transportation fuels and total oil demand.

But you can have electric powered cars.

I don't think batteries of such power exist. An electric car is currently pushing the limit of how much a rechargeable cell can take, at our current level of technology an electric combine harvester doesn't sound feasible. Also, hypothetically charging up machines like this use up just as much, if not more resources.

No, they don't. Of course, it doesn't really matter all that much because agriculture doesn't use a lot of oil.

Of course, farmers could simply grow small amounts of corn, switchgrass and soybeans and use them in their vehicles and equipment, thereby eliminating the need for oil without costly electric machinery.

Well basically to try to weather the storm by leaving civilization, after trying to warn as many people as possible. Now, many may discard me as they always discard people saying that something bad is going to happen, but hey, I've got to try.

There are also ways to bring civilization down faster, which if you want to know about read some of the books I listed in my OP.

Absolutely 100% not going to work. It's a nice idea, but there is simply no way you can get rid of civilisation. Why don't you spend time looking at alternative energies, something may actually work down this route.

But you can have electric powered cars.

Exactly. That's why the oil crisis is hardly a crisis. An inconvenience, yes, and most likely a significant economic challenge, but nowhere near a crisis. Frankly, I think it will be less challenging than the 1970's oil shocks in terms of short and long term economic impact.

Oil use in the productive side of agriculture, industry, and commerce are trivial compared to the amount used in personal transportation. Light duty vehicles consume the vast majority of transportation fuels and total oil demand.

Actually its industry that uses the most energy. Buildings require much more energy than transportation, although transportation requires a lot.

No, they don't. Of course, it doesn't really matter all that much because agriculture doesn't use a lot of oil.


It shows that there is no way you could survive without oil, since modern argiculture depends on it.


Of course, farmers could simply grow small amounts of corn, switchgrass and soybeans and use them in their vehicles and equipment, thereby eliminating the need for oil without costly electric machinery.

:p

I don't think thats anyway near as efficient though.

Actually its industry that uses the most energy. Buildings require much more energy than transportation, although transportation requires a lot.

Energy, yes, oil no.

Buildings consume the majority of electricity and natural gas, but not oil. Oil is almost completely unused in power generation and heating, so its contribution to most industries is solely in a transportation capacity..

No, they don't. Of course, it doesn't really matter all that much because agriculture doesn't use a lot of oil.

Of course, farmers could simply grow small amounts of corn, switchgrass and soybeans and use them in their vehicles and equipment, thereby eliminating the need for oil without costly electric machinery.

By using ethanol? It creates more energy to create ethanol than ethanol gives back, thus unsustainable.

I think there is one small but significant problem with anarcho-primitivism, but I'm not sure if anyone has yet brought it up.

If we were all to somehow revert back to a hunting and gathering lifestyle, the kind that every human being lived before the invention of agriculture thousands of years ago, wouldn't we just end up back where we are now, eventually? The whole idea of anarcho-primitivism makes no sense to me.

By using ethanol? It creates more energy to create ethanol than ethanol gives back, thus unsustainable.

Man, if only there was some object that gives off enough energy in a second to meet all the Earth's energy needs for years. I suppose something like that would have to be undergoing nuclear fusion, and by my calculations would have to be around 93,000,000 miles away. It's a real pity there's nothing like that.

By using ethanol? It creates more energy to create ethanol than ethanol gives back, thus unsustainable.

Only corn ethanol, and that's debatable. Cellulosic ethanol, which is technically developed and is currently in the process of being made economically viable, has an EROEI of 5 to 10. Perennial crops like switchgrass push it even higher, especially since they don't require petrochemicals.

Biodiesel is already energy positive, even using soybeans or other crops.

Absolutely 100% not going to work. It's a nice idea, but there is simply no way you can get rid of civilisation. Why don't you spend time looking at alternative energies, something may actually work down this route.

Because alternative energies don't work.
Nuclear? Fuck no. The waste is terrible, and what happens if it blows?
Hydroelectric? Fuck no, again. Dams kills rivers and everything in them, which harms everything that uses the river, but oh, money is better than nature, right?
Wind power: wind mills kills millions of migratory birds every year, so no, not going to work. (Oh but the economy is more important than birds, I forgot!)
Solar: to many pollutants released during the manufacture of the parts, although this would probably be the least reprehensible choice.
Ethanol: requires more energy to make than it gives back, so no

Wind power: wind mills kills millions of migratory birds every year, so no, not going to work. (Oh but the economy is more important than birds, I forgot!)


No, it doesn't. Honestly, I can think of one case in which a bird was killed by a windmill, and that's because it nested in the electrical wiring. The blades move far too slow to kill a bird.

It shows that there is no way you could survive without oil, since modern argiculture depends on it

Biofuels, hybrids, better efficiency, and eventually batteries. All of them more than enough to address the problem. But here's an important thing to remember: peak oil doesn't happen overnight.

Even if oil supplies decline at a (high) 2% per year continuously (which is almost impossible given past trends and current technologies), we'd still have 10 million barrels per day of oil in 2037.

I don't think thats anyway near as efficient though.

Debatable. Remember, gasoline and diesel require more energy to produce than they provide, but they are used because they pack a lot of energy cheaply in a fairly compact and easily transported package.

I think there is one small but significant problem with anarcho-primitivism, but I'm not sure if anyone has yet brought it up.

If we were all to somehow revert back to a hunting and gathering lifestyle, the kind that every human being lived before the invention of agriculture thousands of years ago, wouldn't we just end up back where we are now, eventually? The whole idea of anarcho-primitivism makes no sense to me.
I don't see how it would. Civilization arose under very dubious conditions at various points around the globe and spread and assimilated hunter-gatherers from there.

Because alternative energies don't work.
Nuclear? Fuck no. The waste is terrible, and what happens if it blows?


The waste is not actually that bad and is containable, and it's extremely unlikely that any modern nuclear powerstation will "blow". Nuclear energy is much more efficient, and much less polluting.


Hydroelectric? Fuck no, again. Dams kills rivers and everything in them, which harms everything that uses the river, but oh, money is better than nature, right?


Oh noes, about 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000th of all the fish in the world may die! Who cares about the human race! :rolleyes:


Wind power: wind mills kills millions of migratory birds every year, so no, not going to work. (Oh but the economy is more important than birds, I forgot!)

Oh noes, about 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000th of all the birds in the world may die! Who cares about the human race! :rolleyes:


Solar: to many pollutants released during the manufacture of the parts,
although this would probably be the least reprehensible choice.


So little, you can completely ignore it.


Ethanol: requires more energy to make than it gives back, so no

Apparently not.

Have you ever studied cultures before civilization? Usually warfare was very ritualized and relatively non-lethal. Power existed yes, but was it ever concentrated in such away that so few receive so much? Hunter-gatherer societies believed in household autonomy. There were leaders, yes, but people did not follow the leader blindly. People listened to the leader, and if they agreed with what the leader said they followed it, if not, the left or chose not to follow it.

As I said earlier, civilization has caused more harm to organisms than its medicine has cured. In many places water is polluted and cannot be used without being purified. Land is polluted. Even the air is polluted! Not to mention our bodies are polluted from breathing and drinking contaminated air and water, not to mention foods.

Don't get me wrong, I love music, especially heavy metal, but I'll sacrifice it in order to have a LIVABLE planet.

Hunter-gather societies had social rules as well. If somebody was caused great harm to the group, or killed someone else within the group, the offender would be banished or perhaps killed, so you don't need to worry that someone will come along and murder you.

So, you are worried about too many kids. 'Primitive' societies knew thousands of plants to use, many of which cause and abortion, so too many people will not be around to consume resources. Also, women breast fed children to later into life, which caused women to be less fertile while breast feeding. Australian aboriginal women generally had children ever 4-8 years. The aborigines managed to maintain a stable population in Australia without devastating their environment for over 50,000 years.

I will not be the only one to live and die in the woods. Once this oil based civilization crashes we will live and die in the woods, as we did for majority of human history.

Societies are still civilization. Where there is culture, there is civilization.

War and power have always existed. Being able to disagree with a leader is also a result of civilization. Before civilization, leadership was determined, like it is in many social animals, by who is the biggest, strongest and most ruthless. Disagree with them? Fine, go fend for yourself, or die. That's how it goes.

Do you accuse aborigines of being uncivilized? I certainly would be so presumptuous.

The law of nature is survival of the fittest. It is mean, it is brutal. There are no "rights" in nature. The only thing you have the right to do outside civilization is die.

Civilization is the abandonment of "only the strongest survive, might means right." Laws are the result of civilization. Civilization is an attempt to make a nicer, more fair code than "survival of the fittest," the idea that just because one is weaker doesn't mean that one deserves death.

Nuclear? Fuck no. The waste is terrible, and what happens if it blows?

Bury it. There's never been a dangerous waste leak in industry history, and only one real disaster, which was due entirely to a badly outdated and poorly designed reactor in a country with no independent regulatory framework to avert the disaster.

Hydroelectric? Fuck no, again. Dams kills rivers and everything in them, which harms everything that uses the river, but oh, money is better than nature, right?

New dam models and power generation equipment have been developed that allow rivers to flow, reducing wildlife casualties to almost nothing. These dams are becoming required by law in many places.

Wind power: wind mills kills millions of migratory birds every year, so no, not going to work. (Oh but the economy is more important than birds, I forgot!)

Wind mills kill very few birds, hardly millions, and new models have almost zero fatalities despite producing more power than older turbines. The newest models produce 5 MW per turbine and have such large, slow moving blades that bird fatalities are almost as low as nonmobile structures.

And don't forget vertical wind turbines.

Solar: to many pollutants released during the manufacture of the parts, although this would probably be the least reprehensible choice.

Polysilicon production is very clean, energy efficient, and produces few emissions. Solar power plants produce almost no emissions whatsoever after completion. Lastly, like wind turbines, a large portion the lands reserved for the plants are undeveloped, revert to wilderness, and help restore a working ecosystem.

Ethanol: requires more energy to make than it gives back, so no

Already addressed this.

I don't see how it would. Civilization arose under very dubious conditions at various points around the globe and spread and assimilated hunter-gatherers from there.

Well, I'm not an expert on the subject, but I have to disagree. It's not as if a monolith was dropped on the planet and civilizations suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Humans are very intelligent and social creatures, who make tools and work together for common purposes. The way I see it, civilization is a natural evolutionary step. Sure, it's caused some problems, but it's also benefited our species greatly. Even if the costs outweigh the benefits, I still think it's too late to go back now.

To quote Isaac Asimov, "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them."

Hydesland: You care that much about producing energy for human consumption that you don't care if entire ecosystems are destroyed in the process? Do you care that the world is being destroyed

Callisdrun: Hunter-gatherers did not live alone. They lived in groups. Groups that supported the group as a whole. If a member was injured they were cared for. Injured members were not just left to die.

Even if the costs outweigh the benefits, I still think it's too late to go back now.

not pleasantly, anyways

He's right about hydroelectric power, I have to say. It kills fisheries and makes breeding grounds for disease. Luckily, we've got other, better sources of energy.

Hydesland: You care that much about producing energy for human consumption that you don't care if entire ecosystems are destroyed in the process? Do you care that the world is being destroyed

Do you understand how minimal, less then trivial, the damage done by dams and wind farms are?

He's right about hydroelectric power, I have to say. It kills fisheries and makes breeding grounds for disease. Luckily, we've got other, better sources of energy.

On conventional dams, yes. New model dams are capable of maintaining water flow that prevents those problems. The main drawback, however, is that the technology isn't feasible on the bigger dams.

Tidal power is better anyways.

On conventional dams, yes. New model dams are capable of maintaining water flow that prevents those problems. The main drawback, however, is that the technology isn't feasible on the bigger dams.

Tidal power is better anyways.

Personally, I'm a fan of using whatever we can to last until we get working nuclear fusion. If all goes right, that'll be in 2050 and by 2080 we'll be able to discard pretty much everything else.

not pleasantly, anyways

Well, yes, that's sort of what I meant. I have no idea why anyone would want to give up the wonders of modern science to live in ignorance of the natural world yet again, and probably end up creating new civilizations anyway. But, different strokes, I guess.

Well basically to try to weather the storm by leaving civilization, after trying to warn as many people as possible. Now, many may discard me as they always discard people saying that something bad is going to happen, but hey, I've got to try.

There are also ways to bring civilization down faster, which if you want to know about read some of the books I listed in my OP.

when you say you are leaving civilization what does that mean? im not asking for your exact plan if its a secret but id like to know what would be involved.

are YOU interested in hastening the fall of civilization?

Personally, I'm a fan of using whatever we can to last until we get working nuclear fusion. If all goes right, that'll be in 2050 and by 2080 we'll be able to discard pretty much everything else.

Even if thats so, what will be the cost? How many species will have gone extinct? How much more pollution will have been emitted? How many more rivers and lakes will have been polluted and become unusable? Do you care that much about gadgets and things that you would sacrifice the earth for them?

Also, what about the human cost? Humans are viewed as things to increase production, to make more money. Can you stand to have humans viewed that way? People are being exploited so a few can get rich. That has been the way of civilization from the beginning. Do you want that to continue?



One more thing. I don't see how nuclear fusion/fission can offset agriculture's dependence on oil. I also don't see ethanol (even if one variety does give more energy that it takes to create) overtaking oil on a large scale until its too late.

The world is not limitless. People cannot always have more more more, despite what governments and capitalism tell us. Current levels of consumption cannot last, and will not last.

when you say you are leaving civilization what does that mean? im not asking for your exact plan if its a secret but id like to know what would be involved.

are YOU interested in hastening the fall of civilization?

How will I leave civilization? By learning how to hunt and forage for food. I need to learn what plants are edible, and which ones aren't. Which plants can be used for medicinal purposes, and which ones aren't. Also things such how to build shelters, fire, clothes, etc. Everyone should know these things, but most people don't, and that is sad.

Am I interesting in bringing down civilization? Yes, I am.

Am I interesting in bringing down civilization? Yes, I am.
So you do want to kill 6 billion people.

So you do want to kill 6 billion people.

What do you think? Do you actually think I want to 6 billion people to die? No, I don't. I'd rather no one die, but the there are too many people, consuming too much. It is not sustainable, thus people will die eventually. Civilization is driving all non-human life to extinction, that is wrong. Humans have no right to destroy the world. The sooner civilization is brought down the better, because at present, there is still land available to live on. More people would survive now than when civilization crashes on its own.

How will I leave civilization? By learning how to hunt and forage for food. I need to learn what plants are edible, and which ones aren't. Which plants can be used for medicinal purposes, and which ones aren't. Also things such how to build shelters, fire, clothes, etc. Everyone should know these things, but most people don't, and that is sad.

Am I interesting in bringing down civilization? Yes, I am.

so you dont have an actual plan at this time, you just plan to be prepared to take care of yourself when the inevitable fall happens?

and why hasten the inevitable?

How will I leave civilization? By learning how to hunt and forage for food. I need to learn what plants are edible, and which ones aren't. Which plants can be used for medicinal purposes, and which ones aren't. Also things such how to build shelters, fire, clothes, etc. Everyone should know these things, but most people don't, and that is sad.

Am I interesting in bringing down civilization? Yes, I am.

But who would feed all the so called intellectuals? They would starve to death debating what is the best way to go about surviving. ;)


Ever watch Survivor man?

What do you think? Do you actually think I want to 6 billion people to die? No, I don't. I'd rather no one die, but the there are too many people, consuming too much. It is not sustainable, thus people will die eventually. Civilization is driving all non-human life to extinction, that is wrong. Humans have no right to destroy the world. The sooner civilization is brought down the better, because at present, there is still land available to live on. More people would survive now than when civilization crashes on its own.


Civilization will not crash as you are describing. There is unlimited resources out there that we just need to go get. We can grow an unlimited supply of food and tap it to a unlimited supply of energy. How will humanity do this? Humanity will move it's ass out into space either on Mars or in orbital colonies. At some point in time we will hit 10 billion, 50 billion, 100 billion and even a trillion human beings. Thing is that they will not be on Earth. Most likely our beloved Earth will be turned into a wildlife park mostly with maybe a billion left on planet side. The majority of humans will end up living on space stations in the future. So why not work toward this goal instead of being a doomsayer?

so you dont have an actual plan at this time, you just plan to be prepared to take care of yourself when the inevitable fall happens?

and why hasten the inevitable?

Well, after I learn survival skills I'll probably move up north and disappear into the wild, preferably with some friends and family. Or maybe I'll stick around and try to help my friends and family survive. I don't know yet.

Why hasten the inevitable? Because the sooner civilization the better is for humans, plants, and animals, and the Earth itself.

The intellectuals will probably debate until the end, although I would hope some would know how to survive! And yes, I have watched survivorman, and that is my favorite TV show, although I have no TV where I am.

Civilization will not crash as you are describing. There is unlimited resources out there that we just need to go get. We can grow an unlimited supply of food and tap it to a unlimited supply of energy. How will humanity do this? Humanity will move it's ass out into space either on Mars or in orbital colonies. At some point in time we will hit 10 billion, 50 billion, 100 billion and even a trillion human beings. Thing is that they will not be on Earth. Most likely our beloved Earth will be turned into a wildlife park mostly with maybe a billion left on planet side. The majority of humans will end up living on space stations in the future. So why not work toward this goal instead of being a doomsayer?

Unlimited resources? What planet are you living on? Earth is barely surviving now. How do you propose it last until we have colonies all over space? By the time we would, which we won't, there will be nothing on earth left for a wildlife preserve.

Also I don't want to leave Earth. It is my home. It is everyones home. I was born here, and I will die here.
If some want to leave, they are welcome to try, but I don't see us reaching the point where off-world colonies are viable.

Unlimited resources? What planet are you living on? Earth is barely surviving now. How do you propose it last until we have colonies all over space? By the time we would, which we won't, there will be nothing on earth left for a wildlife preserve.

Also I don't want to leave Earth. It is my home. It is everyones home. I was born here, and I will die here.
If some want to leave, they are welcome to try, but I don't see us reaching the point where off-world colonies are viable.

Pull in some of the mineral asteroids so we can mine them for metals. Build huge orbital farms and orbital power. We could do off world colonies now if we tried.

Well, after I learn survival skills I'll probably move up north and disappear into the wild, preferably with some friends and family. Or maybe I'll stick around and try to help my friends and family survive. I don't know yet.

Why hasten the inevitable? Because the sooner civilization the better is for humans, plants, and animals, and the Earth itself.

The intellectuals will probably debate until the end, although I would hope some would know how to survive! And yes, I have watched survivorman, and that is my favorite TV show, although I have no TV where I am.

up north? you mean in canada?

up north? you mean in canada?
I'm thinking the area of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Alaska. Anywhere in there. So northwestern US, and western Canada.

I'm thinking the area of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Alaska. Anywhere in there. I'll So northwestern US, and western Canada.

I live in Washington state. Problem is up here 30 years ago this place was great. Land was cheap, air was fresh and lot's of room to roam. However somehow in those thirty years the population increased by 5 times. It is still a good place to live however it is not as solitude as it use to be. However you can still get "lost" around Mt Adams and St Helens if you so choose.

I'm thinking the area of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Alaska. Anywhere in there. I'll So northwestern US, and western Canada.

you better move up there and learn how to live off the land well before you need to know it.

its not easy to live in a place where winter means that there are no crops for 9 months of the year and no fruits and berries for 6 months of the year. it takes extreme expertise in the actual spot you plan to live and great planning skills to survive without civilizations help.

Personally, I'm a fan of using whatever we can to last until we get working nuclear fusion. If all goes right, that'll be in 2050 and by 2080 we'll be able to discard pretty much everything else.

We may not need fusion power by 2050. It'll be an invention implemented for its cheap and endless power, not because of any inherent need. Power "too cheap to meter" (to paraphrase the declarations of the Atomic Age) will be a reality at last, and we will reap the benefits of that development.

For now, everything else is more than enough to power growth in to the 21st century and beyond...fusion is just icing on the cake.

We may not need fusion power by 2050. It'll be an invention implemented for its cheap and endless power, not because of any inherent need. Power "too cheap to meter" (to paraphrase the declarations of the Atomic Age) will be a reality at last, and we will reap the benefits of that development.

For now, everything else is more than enough to power growth in to the 21st century and beyond...fusion is just icing on the cake.

Is it worth continuing like we are now hoping that there will be fusion power in 50 years? Like I've said earlier, at what cost? Is the death of the natural world a price your willing to pay so you can set up some hypothetical off-world colonies using as yet unworkable technology?

Is it worth continuing like we are now hoping that there will be fusion power in 50 years? Like I've said earlier, at what cost? Is the death of the natural world a price your willing to pay so you can set up some hypothetical off-world colonies using as yet unworkable technology?

As opposed to the brutal suffering, starvation and death of 5 billion people or more? Or as opposed to the loss of everything our civilizations have accomplished, of all our knowledge, all of our achievements and all of our dreams as individuals and as a society? Absolutely. We won't be able to reverse the damage already done even if we were to eliminate civilization right now. It would require centuries or millenia for this planet to even remotely approach its condition before mankind developed civilization, if it ever truly happens.

The only way to save this planet is to use civilization to fix itself, to use our minds to solve our problems. Nothing else can or ever will work. We can never go back to the past because the fundamental underlying reasons for civilization's rise are still there and will not vanish until we as a species do. The only way to go is forward.

As opposed to the suffering, starvation and death of 5 billion people or more? Or as opposed to the loss of everything our civilizations have accomplished, of all our knowledge, all of our achievements and all of our dreams as individuals and as a society?

Absolutely. We won't be able to reverse the damage already done even if we were to eliminate civilization right now. It would require centuries or millenia for this planet to even remotely approach its condition before mankind developed civilization, if it ever truly happens.

The only way to save this planet is to use civilization to fix itself. Nothing else can or will work.

Ultimately the world would better without civilization and the harm it has done. Its deaths throws will be horrible, but it will be for the best. All our knowledge and achievements? What have they given us? A dying world.

With civilizations track record how can you say that are only hope is using more of it? How is using more of the poison going to fix anything?

Ultimately the world would better without civilization and the harm it has done. Its deaths throws will be horrible, but it will be for the best. All our knowledge and achievements? What have they given us? A dying world.

Art hasn't destroyed the Earth. Greed and reckless pursuit of personal gain has. Not every aspect of civilization is guilty for all the others, and not every aspect is a product of all the others.

With civilizations track record how can you say that are only hope is using more of it? How is using more of the poison going to fix anything?

The same way that a poison can be used to create its own antivenom, thereby halting its destructive path. By realizing the inherent problems our civilization causes and acting on them, we will be able to slow, halt, and one day reverse the damage it causes. Steps in that direction have been happening, even if it is not fast enough to avert all of the disasters we will face in the future.

The point is that the poison can't be cured by abandoning civilization...you can't just remove poison by throwing away the snake. It can only be cured by using it to cure itself.

Is it worth continuing like we are now hoping that there will be fusion power in 50 years? Like I've said earlier, at what cost? Is the death of the natural world a price your willing to pay so you can set up some hypothetical off-world colonies using as yet unworkable technology?

Oh, get off it. The natural world is not going to die. We couldn't "kill" the natural world if we tried.

The history of the planet is filled evolution, extinction and evolution all over again. In past die-outs over 80% of the species present at the time were obliterated. What sort of intoxicating power do you think humanity has? I mean, seriously, do you really think that there's something intrinsically special about life on this planet at this point in time? Only some sort of hopelessly deranged mystic romantic could ever come to that conclusion. Why would life now be so much more special than the 99% of other life forms in the history of this planet are already gone forever?

We can't end life on this planet, not even if we tried. Life would find a way to survive, and the long chain of evolution would begin itself all over again. We probably can't even measure up to the Cretaceous die-out. We can no more end life on this planet than we can turn coffee into gold, and then magically transform that coffee derived gold into leprechauns.

I mean, this entire preservationist viewpoint is entirely idiotic. Against the long evolutionary backdrop, we are just a speck, a blink in the eye of the planet as our planet continues its long journey through space.

Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about the environment, because we should. Our civilization has too much invested in this planet at this given time to just trash it recklessly in some sort of strange orgasm of consumption. We need to be smart with our resources and all that, but the hubris that is at the core of your shiny little ideology, this quasi religion, this odd nature-worship, is just new-age baloney, with a heady dose of hubris.

Oh, get off it. The natural world is not going to die. We couldn't "kill" the natural world if we tried.

The history of the planet is filled evolution, extinction and evolution all over again. In past die-outs over 80% of the species present at the time were obliterated. What sort of intoxicating power do you think humanity has? I mean, seriously, do you really think that there's something intrinsically special about life on this planet at this point in time? Only some sort of hopelessly deranged mystic romantic could ever come to that conclusion. Why would life now be so much more special than the 99% of other life forms in the history of this planet are already gone forever?

We can't end life on this planet, not even if we tried. Life would find a way to survive, and the long chain of evolution would begin itself all over again. We probably can't even measure up to the Cretaceous die-out. We can no more end life on this planet than we can turn coffee into gold, and then magically transform that coffee derived gold into leprechauns.

I mean, this entire preservationist viewpoint is entirely idiotic. Against the long evolutionary backdrop, we are just a speck, a blink in the eye of the planet as our planet continues its long journey through space.

Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about the environment, because we should. Our civilization has too much invested in this planet at this given time to just trash it recklessly in some sort of strange orgasm of consumption. We need to be smart with our resources and all that, but the hubris that is at the core of your shiny little ideology, this quasi religion, this odd nature-worship, is just new-age baloney.

So you don't think that deforestation, habitat destruction, and a host of other human activities have not had any adverse affect on the rate of extinction? What about the auroch? What about the Dodo? What about the great auk? What about the passenger pigeon? Just a few names of species sacrificed so we can 'progress'.

All species eventually become extinct, but why should a species' time on earth be cut short by human greed?

Ultimately the world would better without civilization and the harm it has done. Its deaths throws will be horrible, but it will be for the best. All our knowledge and achievements? What have they given us? A dying world.

With civilizations track record how can you say that are only hope is using more of it? How is using more of the poison going to fix anything?

Improper word use, bizarre punctuation choices and even stranger spacing. No wonder you want to do away with civilization. You've forgotten how to type English.

So you don't think that deforestation, habitat destruction, and a host of other human activities have not had any adverse affect on the rate of extinction? What about the auroch? What about the Dodo? What about the great auk? What about the passenger pigeon? Just a few names of species sacrificed so we can 'progress'.

All species eventually become extinct, but why should a species' time on earth be cut short by human greed?

Why should that be any different than, say, an asteroid? They're still dead, and in the grand scheme of things, what's the difference? I'd hardly say that any species has any claim to deserve to live on this planet. Evolution is adapt or die, it always has been and always will be. Does it make you feel all icky inside that we're the ones that the cute little animals are being forced to adapt to, is that it?

I'm not arguing that we should shirk our responsibility, rather we should embrace sustainable technologies to drive our civilization forward. Hardly. I'm saying that the hubris that is at the core of this belief set is absurd. That we're somehow qualitatively different from an asteroid, a disease or anything else.

On that matter, how would primitivists account for the species that primitive humans drove to extinction? We hunted the most biggest game of Europe and North America into extinction with pointy sticks. Humans are great at killing stuff off, we've been doing it since the beginning.

So you don't think that deforestation, habitat destruction, and a host of other human activities have not had any adverse affect on the rate of extinction? What about the auroch? What about the Dodo? What about the great auk? What about the passenger pigeon? Just a few names of species sacrificed so we can 'progress'.

All species eventually become extinct, but why should a species' time on earth be cut short by human greed?


Species are knocked off by other species on a regular basis. That is the way life on Earth has been since the begining. However one thing with humans is eventually we will have the capability to bring back extinct species that we helped to their demise and ones that have been long gone.
Humans will most likely be the savior of Earth. By deflecting Earth killing asteroids and By our eventual science breakthroughs we will be able to re-introduce life forms and plants back into out enviroment. Hell when we leave this planet we will bring plants and animals from Earth along with us. Now that is the ultimate in evolution of a planet.
When a planet can produce a life form that will bring the rest of the planet's lifeforms along with it across the universe that is the ultimate in evolution is it not?
Life from Earth will go on even after Earth has been turned into a burnt ember with the aid of humans. The future looks bright.

According nature some sort of special status is not only strange, but somewhat comic. There is nothing intrinsically special about the "natural" world. It's there. Stuff happens out there. But not by design, there is no set schedule of the run of existence for a species. There's no Gaia spirit out there being grumpy about what we're doing to the planet, it's nothing special.

The legitimate reasons why we would want to preserve the planet, though, are entirely human. To take our kids to go see the Grand Tetons, to have them be able to swim in the oceans, to fish in wild rivers. To share the experiences of our own lives, and of our forefathers with them. That's why we'd want to conserve our resources.

But, fuck, we don't need to kill six billion people to pull that one off. With GM foods, hydroponics and innovations in farming our planet can easily support that many people.

According nature some sort of special status is not only strange, but somewhat comic. There is nothing intrinsically special about the "natural" world. It's there. Stuff happens out there. But not by design, there is no set schedule of the run of existence for a species. There's no Gaia spirit out there being grumpy about what we're doing to the planet, it's nothing special.

Well, I would disagree there, but our primary motivation is the same.

As Soheran pointed out, civilization itself can help get us out of the problems that it supposedly created.

It will never solve all of them, or even come close.

But since our prison walls seem here to stay....

But since our prison walls seem here to stay....

I wouldn't call it a prison...we are free to leave, as difficult as it is. It's somewhere in between.

On that matter, how would primitivists account for the species that primitive humans drove to extinction?

The ecological damage "primitive" humans did, while real, pales in comparison to that done by "modern" societies.

we are free to leave, as difficult as it is.

So is any prisoner, if "difficulty" is not counted as an obstacle.

So is any prisoner, if "difficulty" is not counted as an obstacle.

It's more of a gilded cage. The bird can go if it wants, but it knows nothing of life outside the cage and couldn't survive if it tried. Life inside is comfortable, but ultimately there is no freedom barring intense effort.

Wow. It's so nice to hear my people discussed in such flattering terms.

Hi. We're still here.

Hey, Trollgaard, what country do you live in?

Callisdrun: Hunter-gatherers did not live alone. They lived in groups. Groups that supported the group as a whole. If a member was injured they were cared for. Injured members were not just left to die.

You call hunter-gatherers uncivilized? Civilization is an idea. Not some creation of concrete and steel. There are laws in hunter-gatherer societies. They are not uncivilized.

Civilization =/= technology.

You call hunter-gatherers uncivilized?

"Undomesticated" is perhaps the more appropriate term.

-

I'm sorry, this is just too ridiculous. For one, you're on a computer, posting on the internet, in a house with hot and cold running water, electricity, and sewage service. And yet here you are talking about how supposedly evil civilization is, when you are reaping the benefits of it. If you wish to expound the advantages of scrounging for nuts and berries in the woods, then please, lead by example, just don't come on here and preach to us from your ivory tower about how immoral, and tragic modern life is.

Meh. I like computers. And plumbing.

Hey, Trollgaard, what country do you live in?

One that's obviously sufficiently civilized that they don't send him to reeducation camps for holding such ludicrous ideas.

When you look at what civilization has done historically it becomes evident that destruction of the natural world, enslavement of humans and nonhumans, and exploitation are inherent qualities.

What good is technology when the world is dead? Would you want to live in a dead world where only technologies keeps mankind from dying?

Every group of people has its own justice. To assume hunter-gathers, past, present, or future don't is folly. They may not have it written down, but its there. Oh and it is more than just planting trees. It is keeping the forests alive an healthy. A tree farm is not a forest.
Destruction of the "natural" world? What makes the "natural" world better than the human world? What exactly do you mean by "natural"? Surely if humans are part of nature, then isn't what humans do therefore part of "nature's course"? Wouldn't that make civilization part of the natural world?

Enslavement? Slavery is opposed now more than it was before, and as I pointed out progress is a product of civilization. You've said that even though people aren't literallly "forced" to do things that they're "slaves" to money, but compared to what? Everyone having to hunt and/or gather in getting their own food instead of buying it through money and getting that money through a job when jobs vary from person to person and they can choose their job? In civilization there's a wide variety of different jobs to choose from. Even if people would supposedly lean towards a job because more money's in it, it's not like they're being FORCED to. They can choose that if their values oppose materialism, they can lean towards a job that they would they feel more satisfied about doing, (like teachers do, for example) as long as they don't force others to give them the money they chose not to pursue. When someone makes money, it's because someone else gives it to them, and in turn someone else gave it to the person who gave it to them. Of course, I'm not arguing that the system is perfect, but compared to the wild, I'd say capitalism protects individual dignity more.

Exploitation? Compared to what? As has been repeatedly pointed out to you (and from what I've read so far, you seem to be ignoring) nature is all about survival of the fittest. Animals in the wild are EXTREMELY exploitative; they will go after the weak, taking advantage of the opportunity. That's outside of civilization. I'd say that if anything it's the other way around.

Amen brother/sister!!! :)

Destruction of the "natural" world? What makes the "natural" world better than the human world? What exactly do you mean by "natural"? Surely if humans are part of nature, then isn't what humans do therefore part of "nature's course"? Wouldn't that make civilization part of the natural world?

Enslavement? Slavery is opposed now more than it was before, and as I pointed out progress is a product of civilization. You've said that even though people aren't literallly "forced" to do things that they're "slaves" to money, but compared to what? Everyone having to hunt and/or gather in getting their own food instead of buying it through money and getting that money through a job when jobs vary from person to person and they can choose their job? In civilization there's a wide variety of different jobs to choose from. Even if people would supposedly lean towards a job because more money's in it, it's not like they're being FORCED to. They can choose that if their values oppose materialism, they can lean towards a job that they would they feel more satisfied about doing, (like teachers do, for example) as long as they don't force others to give them the money they chose not to pursue. When someone makes money, it's because someone else gives it to them, and in turn someone else gave it to the person who gave it to them. Of course, I'm not arguing that the system is perfect, but compared to the wild, I'd say capitalism protects individual dignity more.

Exploitation? Compared to what? As has been repeatedly pointed out to you (and from what I've read so far, you seem to be ignoring) nature is all about survival of the fittest. Animals in the wild are EXTREMELY exploitative; they will go after the weak, taking advantage of the opportunity. That's outside of civilization. I'd say that if anything it's the other way around.

So you consider humans separate from nature? I don't, but that delusion runs rampant in the civilized. And no, civilization is not natural. Is it natural to kill the thing that sustains you? No, that is insane. Civilization creates the view that humans are separate from, and can live without nature, therefore, not natural.

As I've stated before civilization's progress has come at the expense of noncivilized people, plants, animals, clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet, as well as the expense of the civilized themselves. Nature is about surviving, but like I've said before, it was every individual for themselves, as humans rarely live by themselves. Survival is a group effort. Hunter-gatherers do not like overbearing individuals or leaders, so there would be no exploitation of leaders on everyone else. Also, exploitation to survive is one thing. Exploitation to get rich is another.

I'm sorry, this is just too ridiculous. For one, you're on a computer, posting on the internet, in a house with hot and cold running water, electricity, and sewage service. And yet here you are talking about how supposedly evil civilization is, when you are reaping the benefits of it. If you wish to expound the advantages of scrounging for nuts and berries in the woods, then please, lead by example, just don't come on here and preach to us from your ivory tower about how immoral, and tragic modern life is.

Something he's been told numerous times before.

On that matter, how would primitivists account for the species that primitive humans drove to extinction? We hunted the most biggest game of Europe and North America into extinction with pointy sticks. Humans are great at killing stuff off, we've been doing it since the beginning.

You are talking about the Pleistocene overkill, aren't you?

Something he's been told numerous times before.

I've answered it in this thread several times. Just go back a few pages.

According nature some sort of special status is not only strange, but somewhat comic. There is nothing intrinsically special about the "natural" world. It's there. Stuff happens out there. But not by design, there is no set schedule of the run of existence for a species. There's no Gaia spirit out there being grumpy about what we're doing to the planet, it's nothing special.

The legitimate reasons why we would want to preserve the planet, though, are entirely human. To take our kids to go see the Grand Tetons, to have them be able to swim in the oceans, to fish in wild rivers. To share the experiences of our own lives, and of our forefathers with them. That's why we'd want to conserve our resources.

But, fuck, we don't need to kill six billion people to pull that one off. With GM foods, hydroponics and innovations in farming our planet can easily support that many people.

There is nothing special about nature? There is nothing special about life? What the hell? It seems to me that your view of nature is that it is there for the benefit of humans, and that is the view that is destroying the planet.

Six billion people won't be killed. They'll live or die based on the carrying capacity of the planet, just like any other animal.

Civilization =/= technology.

civilization does, however, = having permanently settled cities, extensive division of labor, intensive agriculture, etc.

I live in Washington state. Problem is up here 30 years ago this place was great. Land was cheap, air was fresh and lot's of room to roam. However somehow in those thirty years the population increased by 5 times. It is still a good place to live however it is not as solitude as it use to be. However you can still get "lost" around Mt Adams and St Helens if you so choose.

you can "get lost" in lots of places in north america.

that atlanta abortion clinic bomber hid out for years in the georgia/north carolina area.

what you cant do is take your friends and family and build a life. to do that you have to have the money to buy a big parcel of land somewhere. if you just squat and start building log cabins, when someone finds you you will be tossed off the land and lose everything you have worked to build.

I've answered it in this thread several times. Just go back a few pages.

Yes, I'm aware. I just wish you'd do more "preparing for life in the wild" and less "telling us about it."

Well, after I learn survival skills I'll probably move up north and disappear into the wild, preferably with some friends and family. Or maybe I'll stick around and try to help my friends and family survive. I don't know yet.

Why hasten the inevitable? Because the sooner civilization the better is for humans, plants, and animals, and the Earth itself.

The intellectuals will probably debate until the end, although I would hope some would know how to survive! And yes, I have watched survivorman, and that is my favorite TV show, although I have no TV where I am.

Come back and tell me you want to destroy civilization when you are alone, bored, almost freezing and starving to death.

This thread is so full of :headbang: it's amazing. Personally, I'm more interested in the sequence of events that would result in complete rejection of civilization in its entirety.

I'd like to see permanent settlements on other worlds, myself.

This thread is so full of :headbang: it's amazing. Personally, I'm more interested in the sequence of events that would result in complete rejection of civilization in its entirety.

I'd like to see permanent settlements on other worlds, myself.

do you think that the settlers would be the privileged few who get to leave a used up earth or will they be the mass deportees sent to colonies so that the privileged few can have a better life on earth?

do you think that the settlers would be the privileged few who get to leave a used up earth or will they be the mass deportees sent to colonies so that the privileged few can have a better life on earth?

Initially, it will be the wealthy, but as the cost of space travel falls and the offworld infrastructure is build and developed, more and more people will be able to move offworld and relocate. It's not something that will happen overnight, of course.

But then again, we assume the Earth will be used up; the more and more of our resources that come from renewable sources, the less we'll consume permanently.

Vetalia has the right idea.

Initially, it will be the wealthy, but as the cost of space travel falls and the offworld infrastructure is build and developed, more and more people will be able to move offworld and relocate. It's not something that will happen overnight, of course.

But then again, we assume the Earth will be used up; the more and more of our resources that come from renewable sources, the less we'll consume permanently.

why would a rich person want to move to mars (or any other reasonable location)? except for the adventurers who would pay for any dangerous trip.

it will be a hard dangerous claustrophobic life. i wouldnt go.

why would a rich person want to move to mars (or any other reasonable location)? except for the adventurers who would pay for any dangerous trip.

it will be a hard dangerous claustrophobic life. i wouldnt go.

Yeah, also demons might invade it from a portal that goes to hell!

/doomspeak

Hell, I'd like to own a mansion on Mars, just to say that I do. I'm also gonna have a totally bitchin' space yacht.

Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would be against space exploration; there's just so much stuff out there, it'd be foolish not to go.

Yeah, also demons might invade it from a portal that goes to hell!

/doomspeak

huh?

are you proposing a dream world not unlike our OP?

to live on a planet, satellite or asteroid where human life does not live naturally will be a constant struggle for survival.

huh?

are you proposing a dream world not unlike our OP?

to live on a planet, satellite or asteroid where human life does not live naturally will be a constant struggle for survival.

Only in the beginning; once sufficient infrastructure is developed, it will actually be quite comfortable.