User loginAnarchist Library
Anarchist Events
|
Beyond Post-Apocalyptic Eco-Anarchism
Unlike twenty-five years ago, people are now publicly saying that our global civilization is a disease and that mankind is a plague, a planetary scourge. I admit that I find these sorts of metaphors alluring. There is finality, a sense of epistemological certainty in the notion that our species is cancerous due to its avaricious proclivities. It does seem that we are busily destroying the Garden of Eden. But this metaphor is incomplete, as are many metaphors. “What are we? Monsters, machines, animals, angels, humans...?” Of course, these are all possible answers, varied and complex patterns lurk in our self-definition. For me the best answer is, “We are the part of Nature that has forgotten that we are a part of nature.” (Some might say that we are in ‘complete denial’.) We fool ourselves. No matter how man-made our immediate environs, we are still a part of nature – deeply and richly so. We are a part of the pageant of life, and as I said at the start, I love life. We are part of an extraordinary flowering in the universe. Unlike twenty-five years ago, increasingly, people are adopting the anarcho-apocalyptic, civilization-must-fall-to-save-the-world attitude. It is a fairly clean and tight worldview, zealously bulletproof, and it scares me. I want the natural world, the greater community of life beyond our species, with all its beautiful and terrifying manifestations, and its vibrant landscapes to survive intact – I think about this a lot. A quick collapse of global civilization will almost certainly lead to greater explosive damage to the biosphere than a mediated slower meltdown. When one envisions the collapse of global society one is not discussing the demise of an ancient Greek city-state, or even the abandonment of an empire like the Mayans. The end of our global civilization would not only result in the death of six billion humans, just wiping nature’s slate clean. We also have something like 5,000 nuclear facilities spread across the planet’s surface. And this is just one obvious and straightforward fact cutting across new radical arguments in favor of a quick fall. We have inserted ourselves into the web of life on planet Earth, into its interstitial fibers, over the last 500 years. We are now a big part of the world’s dynamic biological equation set – its checks and balances. If we get a “fever” and fall into social chaos, even just considering our non-nuclear toys laying about, the damage will be profound. It will be much more devastating than our new visionaries of post-apocalyptic paradise have prophesized. If one expands upon current examples of social chaos that we already see, like Afghanistan or Darfur, extrapolating them across the globe, encompassing Europe, Asia, North and South America, and elsewhere, then one can easily imagine desperate outcomes where nature is sacrificed wholesale in vain attempts to rescue human life. The outcomes would be beyond “ugly”; they would be horrific and enduring. That is why I cannot accept this new wave of puritanical anarcho-apocalyptic theology. The end-point of a quick collapse is quite likely to resemble the landscape of Mars, or even perhaps the Moon. I love life. I do not want the Earth turned barren. I think that those who are dreaming of a world returned to its wilderness state are lovely, naive romantics – dangerous ones. Imagine 100 Chernobyl’s spewing indelible death. Imagine a landscape over-run with desperate and starving humans, wiping out one ecosystem after another. Imagine endless tribal wars where there are no restraints on the use of chemical and biological weapons. Imagine a failing industrial infrastructure seeping massive quantities of deadly toxins into the air, water and soil. This is not a picture of primitive liberation, of happy post-civilized life working the organic farm on Salt Spring Island. I agree that we must change our ways. We desperately need to change our ways. Our global society is exploitative, unsustainable, and abuses the biosphere. We are in big trouble. However, coping out by calling for a hastened end to civilization is suicidal, and like all suicides, it does not fully consider what comes after – it is marked by a surplus of self-absorbed willfulness and a short-fall of thoughtful consideration. There is, however, a more reasonable sub-strain of eco-apocalyptic anarchism that makes a truly heartfelt argument: “The End is coming anyway. If we hasten it, we may save species ’x’ that is currently on the verge of extinction. We should accept that our species is doomed. Must we take everything down with us in a long, slow death?” I find this rhetoric particularly appealing because it awakens deep personal notions of romantic heroism in me. These are noble, caring thoughts. Unfortunately, life just isn’t quite so simple. Sure a quick crash might save a couple of emblematic species from extinction, for a while, but the near certain trade-off would be the desertification of whole continental areas of the planet, wiping out thousands of complete ecosystems. So, what are we to do? I think our best shot at stopping the destruction of our biosphere and retaining a maximum number of intact eco-systems is powerful, irresistible gradualism. Nature herself operates gradually. It is Mankind that has been impetuous. If we work diligently and intelligently then we just might save civilization through massive cultural transformation. And if we fail then we might at least succeed in preserving enough of the life-world that those species that follow us will be able to continue the flowering of life on our planet. Those who hold Hollywood images of deer and wolves happily roaming the derelict and abandoned streets of New York City in 50 years are hopelessly optimistic. If civilization crashes quickly then the whole of the Eastern Seaboard, an area the size of the Sahara desert, will be a dead zone for 10,000 years, minimum. We need cultural transformation and we need it now. We must adopt the Precautionary Principle, making it a cornerstone of our relationships with each other and the natural world. "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998 We have the keys to paradise. We know the whereabouts of the door to a beautiful future. We need only the courage and the resolve to unlock this door, enter and claim our natural place in the wondrous scheme of life on Earth, to remember our ourselves and our home. Stay informed.Subscribe and get the best of PEJ News by email. Free. Prometheus Institute does not endorse any article or comment that is published on PEJ.org. The opinions expressed in all articles and comments are those of the authors and not of Prometheus Institute or the Peace, Earth & Justice News. |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the monthly Anarchist News Digest. |
while in general i don't
while in general i don't disagree with either a) the idea that ending civilization without taking into account things like nuclear reactors is optimistic (or something) and
b) the idea that apocalyptic endings are too reminiscent of biblical, christian paradigms...
still, i wish that this author had been a bit more explicit about what exactly would (for example) make "the Eastern Seaboard, an area the size of the Sahara desert, will be a dead zone for 10,000 years, minimum."
You're a reformist, plain
You're a reformist, plain and simple. You are ignoring the reality of the situation and you yourself are in denial. I assume your attacking primitivism with its critique of civilization and calls to end it, but you clearly haven't looked into enough primitivist thought to understand what it is that is being said. No one is saying that the fall of civilization will be pretty and beautiful, that we will instantly enter into utopia and we will all live happily ever after. We're not naive, don't make us out to be. Yes, people will die when civilization crashes, we're not like the fundamentalist christians though and don't associate us with them, we aren't saying that we are going to survive this while the rest of you who believe in civilization are going to perish into the depths of some hell, we realize that there is no heaven that awaits us, that's not what we're in this for, I could and probably will die when civilization collapses, but the idea that people won't continue to die if it doesn't, is naive. You're going to have blood on your hands no matter what, and you are ignoring the fact that we have exceeded our carrying capacity. Carrying capacity isn't primitivist bullshit, this is found outside of our thought and within science, clearly our ecosystems cannot hold the population of our species which means that we cannot continue on like this. The Earth cannot hold 6 billion people, it doesn't have the means to do so, and just because technology keeps on finding loop holes, does not mean that we can continue to have more and more people and nothing is going to happen as a result. If we end civilization today, the Earth can still support probably 500 million people, if we continue to prolong the collapse of civilization, and the population size continues to exceed, more people are going to die. We shouldn't be questioning what we can do to make civilization continue, but what we can do to help each other out when the fall comes, what we can do to save the most amount of people that we can.
Your vision that civilization can be saved though is naive. Even if it is able to be saved, what's worth saving? The fact that every mother has dioxins in her breast milk? The dams which are killing the salmon? The clear cuts which are destroying our forests? Mountain top removal for coal? The windmills and cellphone towers which are killing the birds? The genetically modified crops and radiation from cell phone towers which are killing off honey bees that we need to survive? Cancer? Crones disease? Arthritis? Parkinsons disease? Technology that alienates and isolates us? The division of labor? Hierarchy? I'd seriously like to know what is so worth keeping of this civilization, or is just that you are falling into the same trap as everyone else and have been convinced by the system that you need it to live and without it, we'd all die? Cause that's what it sounds like.
You call for a cultural transformation to save civilization, yet there is nothing worth saving. You want to save something which is based on the destruction of the natural world, you're a hypocrite. You say we're wanting suicide but the very nature of continuing civilization is suicidal. Civilization isn't going to be brought down by us, it is going to collapse, and that is all we can do is aid in bringing the collapse faster because the sooner it does collapse, the better off this species will be. Yes, many people have to die, but many people are going to die if we keep with this civilization. How many people a year are dying as a result of carwrecks? Of preventable diseases? Of sickness' from the food? Of police attacks (and yes, police are a result of civilization)? How many a year die of starvation? How many will die because of global warming (which will continue if we keep up with this way of life)? Christ, how many sharks die per year because of this civilization? Are you seriously willing to accept the continual murder of the ocean? Your solution to the problem still is including industrial civilization which is insane. What do you suggest, alternative energy? There isn't enough alternative energy to meet the energy demands of this world, even if we go with the unrealistic options of ethanol and biodiesel. You recognize that civilization is unsustainable, yet you are stupid enough to believe we should continue on with it anyways? Do you understand what that means when something isn't sustainable?
As anarchists should we just accept Libertarian thought and go with "lesser" government until we are finally left with no government? Or should we just abolish the whole fucking State? The point being, civilization leads to domination and hierarchy, we all should recognize this by now. It leads to work, exploitation, slavery, war, etc. Your argument of tribal wars ignores that there was no such thing as tribal wars before the rise in agriculture which also created the concepts of priviate property, ownership, and settlement. Primitivism argues that we should go back to living in hunter-gatherer societies. You're calling for a slow change, gradual change, which is completely illogical, and doesn't take into account that we don't have the time to make a gradual change for one, and that it's not worth making. The Earth is being killed and you're willing to accept that because you are too afraid to live without civilization. I'm not. We need this Earth to survive and your leftist bullshit ideas are not going to save us, you can have all the energy efficient lightbulbs you want, but if our lifestyle is still unsustainable then it doesn't fucking matter. If I can't drink the water, breathe the air, and live, then it doesn't matter what kind of world we live in. Read Derrick Jensen's Endgame, or something by John Zerzan, at least figure out what the hell you're attacking before you attack it, this essay is full of flaws and doesn't understand at all the thoughts of primitivists.
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/shipoffools.htm
I don't particularly agree
I don't particularly agree with the essay on every point, however your rebuttal seems filled with just as much unscientific rhetorical baggage, if not more, than it does. Your statements about energy, an pollution aren't very accurate.
First off civilization is not a monolithic construct of Euro-american design in 2008. It was built over thousands of years, it has seen many shapes, most of which do not have any of the things which you're complaints mention, excepting agriculture.
Secondly you don't know all of what forms of energy exist in the universe, every form of life, or motion requires and creates energy. Energy has existed in this universe since it began and life is harvesting only a small portion of it to propel itself into new shapes and forms. The methods that humans have developed to mimic the natural phenomenon of transforming one form of energy into another are dirty, and destructive. Perhaps every form that will ever be developed by humanity will be equally as dirty, however considering that there are means within the universe not at our disposal that harvest energy cleanly and safely (such as photosynthesis, and metabolizing other life forms) it is entirely likely that a form of energy that is not destructive can be developed by living beings.
Thirdly civilization is not the cause of all bad things. Civilization allows many of them to exist, but so does the planet earth. Simply because police came about after the development of civilization does not logically prove that they are a result. Police can't exist without the biosphere either, perhaps next you'll argue to abolish it.
Fourthly sedentary society didn't even develop out of agriculture, many pacific north west natives were a sedentary people living off of fishing, without the use of agriculture.
Fifthly civilizations have already crumbled and rebuilt themselves differently. I wouldn't get so hopeful that a collapse will bring anything positive. Likely the outcome will be a wonderful new dark ages, full of post-industrial nightmare scenarios, and many delightful despots powered by the word of god to save us from the great disaster. No fuckin' thanks!
Before you begin telling me what I should read, you should know that I have read Jensen and Zerzan. I find many of there argument interesting but most appeal to emotion and are speculative. Without actual scientific research into these issues speculation is poison. If you dismiss science as well then don't even bother responding with reactionary rhetorical arguments. Anarchist need rational minds, not hocus pocus driven fantasies.
"Before you begin telling me
"Before you begin telling me what I should read, you should know that I have read Jensen and Zerzan."
I don't know who you are, you act as if you are the author of this article, and it was the author of this article which the comment was directed towards, I'm assuming you are the other person who responded to the article. This article is full of flaws and doesn't take up a stance that shows me that the author is informed at all.
"First off civilization is not a monolithic construct of Euro-american design in 2008. It was built over thousands of years, it has seen many shapes, most of which do not have any of the things which you're complaints mention, excepting agriculture."
Oh, I see, so I just made up all those things in my head that are currently happening. The salmon aren't dying, no bears are dying, the forests aren't being clear cut, actually there never was forests in the Middle East or Europe either ,excuse me, and no, the honey bee's as the other individual mentioned aren't dying off either, that's just a myth. Those are all myths, everything is fine, lets sit back and watch our TV and get our fill of technology more and more. Cancer is a disease of civilization, this isn't some primitivist bullshit, and none of this is, if you do your research you can find it as well. I never implied that civilization is a monolithic construct of Euro-aamerican design in 2008 you asshole. Civilization has existed for the past 10,000 years, I realize this.
"Without actual scientific research into these issues speculation is poison."
Ah, an anarchist making a god out of Science. I am against science, however, some of what science brings up is of course useful and without it we wouldn't have anthropology which I find quite useful in critiques of civilization. Excuse me if I don't feel the need to bring up source after source for a simple comment, perhaps you should bring up your sources as well, because your just giving reactionary rhetorical arguments as well, are you not?
There is scientific research into all of this if you do the searching, hell, Jensen's book Endgame has notes at the end of the book which shows that this culture and civilization does result in these actions.
I don't care about all the forms of energy that exist in the universe and if you are too stupid to understand what I meant by energy then please don't bother holding yourself up as some genius."Life is harvesting only a small portion of it to propel itself into new shapes and forms." The energy sources which we are using are not sustainable, and that includes so-called "green" energy. Don't take things farther then I've taken them just in an effort to discredit me and my points, I'm not taking things you say farther, in fact, I don't even know who the fuck you are to take things farther (please clarify whether you are the author or the first commenter).
As far as sedentism, I never claimed that it came forth only with agriculture but it came forth during that transition period. They were not fully hunter-gatherer nor were they fully agriculture societies, they were a mix.
"Thirdly civilization is not the cause of all bad things. Civilization allows many of them to exist, but so does the planet earth. Simply because police came about after the development of civilization does not logically prove that they are a result. Police can't exist without the biosphere either, perhaps next you'll argue to abolish it."
Oh my god, you answered it all! Nice response. Again, you turn a comment against me without taking into account that civilization is the cause of these things. One could also say that if there is a fire and a forest is taken out, then the fire clearly isn't the cause of that, it just came about after the development of the fire, so we can't blame the fire. That comment makes no sense. And yes, with civilization comes war, with civilization comes government, they are all things which are required by civilization. Division of labor is required by civilization. Hierarchy is required by civilization. Private property is required by civilization. I would hope that you're not that far in denial that you would deny that shit. Domestication of all things, even the most basic idiot can understand is a part of civilization and domestication is something that all anarchists should be against regardless of how far their critique of civilization goes. When your attempting to bring forth free dimensions under control, that is something that I would think that you would be against. It isn't a result of civilization allowing anything to exist (although I'm interested in the fact that you make it out to be a real live living thing), it is the result of these things coming with civilization and being required by it. How would the ideas of private property be enforced without the police?
" Fifthly civilizations have already crumbled and rebuilt themselves differently. I wouldn't get so hopeful that a collapse will bring anything positive. Likely the outcome will be a wonderful new dark ages, full of post-industrial nightmare scenarios, and many delightful despots powered by the word of god to save us from the great disaster. No fuckin' thanks!"
Yes, civilizations have crumbled and new ones have emerged, and what has come with those new ones? You act as if civilization is the most beautiful thing there is. One can recognize that there is more freedom and equality and general happiness within foraging societies then there ever is within civilized societies. I never said it was going to be this glorious thing and everything would be great right away. Chances are it won't be great and I would probably be one of the people to die (one must wonder if you actually read my whole comment or just skimmed through it to attack me). The point being, the natural world is being destroyed by civilization, and it's not just this civilization, it's been every civilization that has existed which wages a war against the natural world, and that is something I won't accept. We can't live without the natural world in case you don't realize that. We will die. If you want to pretend that everything is fine, go right ahead, but civilization will collapse and I will be doing what I can to quicken that collapse. I'm willing to defend the Earth, you're willing to make compromises with a system that is destroying it. The sad part about all this is that you act as if things are going to be so much better with civilization. Should I look forward to dioxins staying in mothers breast milk? Toxic waste in my water? Cancer? Hell, the pharmeceutical industry which is there to create drugs to cure the diseases caused by civilization is putting out more pollution then anyone else which in the end is causing more diseases. More god damned violence? (this one you can't deny at the very least, that civilization is based upon violence). Regardless of whether civilization needs to stay or not though, all of your solutions which hold industrialism needs to stay, are not real solutions, it just continues to cause more problems.
You're refusing to address my other points, you are just simply giving simple responses, you might as well just have said "you're wrong" on everyone of them because neither of them went far enough to prove any of my points wrong, you just gave me a bunch of bullshit on how I'm giving you reactionary rhetorical arguments and anarchists need rational minds and not hocus pocus driven fantasies. I can provide you with a whole field of Science (which you love apparently) to back up what I'm saying, and that field is anthropology. Regardless of what you think of anti-civilization thought or anything else, I am advocating the truest form of anarchy to have ever existed, the most complete form of anarchy (and don't give me the spanish revolution bullshit as a response) to ever exist has been in hunter-gatherer societies where there has never been more gender equality and autonomy, and there was no representation, no government, no hierarchy, none of that shit.
If we're going to hold scientific research to everything then there is no way anything can exist. Science cannot PROVE anything, this is something scientists even admit. Your science only goes with the war on nature and only continues to create more technology (I would hope I don't need to get into the points on how technology is bad). Science has created the nuclear warhead. Science has created nuclear power. You act like the Christians do with biblical research, except with Science. There is science which is useful for showing how civilization is fucking with things, but you would likely just ignore that.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070416231818470
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html
http://www.primitivism.com/sedentism.htm
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/thesis.htm
anon: "I am against
anon:
"I am against science"
"I don't care about all the forms of energy that exist in the universe"
You have an unscientific mind, and this is why you can only see part of the picture here...
To quote the other poster:
"Anarchists need to have rational minds."
I agree. And the Anarchist Movement needs its people to be rational, empirical, and logical in order to make the right decisions, to express our viewpoints effectively, and to earn credibility and hopefully enough social influence to bring about positive change.
You, sir, are not an Anarchist. You are a nihilist.
Also, (and many people make this mistake) it is incorrect to imagine humanity, and its creations, as being distinct or seperate from the biosphere. Unless you believe we were planted here several thousand years ago by God, or Aliens, then you must conclude that our cities are fundamentally no different (though far more destructive) than the hives of those honeybees you are so concerned about.
As such, (and I think this is what the article's author was trying to say) we have a responsibility to at least try to transform our society into a sustainable one, now (some of us) are intelligent enough to know how. But, trust me, science is going to be required.
Where do you draw the line of what science is? I'm glad that you are interested in anthropology, but you should broaden your horizons a bit... and always be wary of the propaganda that circulates in scientific communities! As an environmentalist, I'm sure you'd be aware of that...
And isn't agriculture one of the earliest sciences? How do you hope to live, and to help others, after the "collapse," without at least some rudimentary science?
The system we are trying to fix is vastly complicated, and we must take it upon ourselves (because some information and history is simply not taught) to master ALL sciences, in order to ever understand what's happening to our world. Good luck stopping the New World Order if you can't understand how it's operating!
Yes, I am a nihilist, but I
Yes, I am a nihilist, but I question whether you actually understand what that means. Anarchism and Nihilism can go together, they aren't paradoxical in the least. So I don't know why you would bother attacking me along that lines. Nihilism:
"Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement. "
Oh, so it's a democratic vote that anarcho-primitivist thought isn't logical, huh? This is logical thought that none of you want to take into account. You aren't understanding what this civilization is doing to the natural world. We cannot live a sustainable lifestyle so long as civilization exists.
It isn't incorrect to imagine humanity as being distinct from the biosphere as I am saying we are. Yes, we are a part of nature, but we are seperating ourselves from it, putting up mediums, we do not have a relationship with it. We are isolated from nature, don't give me this bullshit that we are still a part of it when we are living in houses, driving in cars, etc. That's not nature.
"As such, (and I think this is what the article's author was trying to say) we have a responsibility to at least try to transform our society into a sustainable one, now (some of us) are intelligent enough to know how. But, trust me, science is going to be required."
Regardless of what you think, you can't seriously argue that living in a post-primitive society would not be more sustainable then reforming civilization? You can't be that naive. You want to keep civilization, I would rather see a society built with communities that enter into a sustainable relationship with the world.
"And isn't agriculture one of the earliest sciences? How do you hope to live, and to help others, after the "collapse," without at least some rudimentary science?"
Agriculture brought forth things that anarchists are opposed to, government, hierarchy, inequality, private property. So no, I don't want agriculture. After the collapse there are many things which we can do, but not build more technology and not use more science. How far are you willing to really go with the idea of science is really the question? Would you say it is Science that the Jarawa was using Science when it knew that the tsunami was coming? I wouldn't. Science as far as I'm concerned is a civilized thing, and I oppose it. What has Science done for us? The atom bomb? Nuclear power? Irradiated foods? Yeah, that's some great stuff to be happy about. Why are you asking me though what I plan to do after the collapse? It seems that you should stop mocking primitivists and criticizing me for not knowing enough and not understanding the new world order enough and should be doing something yourself to prepare for the collapse. It sounds like you all want us to provide all the answers when you should be looking for answers yourselves.
You are right, anarchism and
You are right, anarchism and nihilism are not mutually exclusive. But I think you make a better nihilist :)
By your own logic it was human intellect resulted in the creation of social hierarchies, so we should abolish intellect? Your getting a lot of your causation backwards. This is what I meant about you're being unscientific. Some people got it, some people don't.
My argument is that Anarchism doesn't have to mean reverting back to a primitive way of life. In fact, it is this notion of Anarchism as "chaos" or "reverting back to the laws of the jungle" which has been FALSELY propagated in mainstream media and education, in order to discredit real anarchists, who offer a peaceful alternative to Statism.
I believe that true anarchism in practice is something that, if humans are lucky, we may be able to achieve one day, but it will be by moving forwards, not backwards. I believe it is a more sophisticated AND more natural way than statism of any kind, and it is something that is worth working towards. Anarchists tend to disagree, however, on the best way to get us there, though it should be noted that not all options are violent ones. I don't advocate a slow reform, either.
I want a social wake up call, not an apocalypse. That's all.
"By your own logic it was
"By your own logic it was human intellect resulted in the creation of social hierarchies, so we should abolish intellect? Your getting a lot of your causation backwards"
Point out where I said that. That's not what I said. The creation of hierarchy came with civilization which came as a result of many diffrent things, one of which was a slow division of labor that came forth. Honestly though, I'm not going to sit here and argue over which persons ideas are more logical or scientific, and all that other bullshit, I'm arguing over the obvious.
"My argument is that Anarchism doesn't have to mean reverting back to a primitive way of life. In fact, it is this notion of Anarchism as "chaos" or "reverting back to the laws of the jungle" which has been FALSELY propagated in mainstream media and education, in order to discredit real anarchists, who offer a peaceful alternative to Statism."
Yes, I realize that's your argument, and your argument is false. I have shown you all that comes with civilization and shown you that civilization requires violence, you have failed to deconstruct that theory, you have failed to show me otherwise so you cannot talk about a peaceful alternative to Statism because there will still be no peace and there will still be no true anarchy.
"I believe that true anarchism in practice is something that, if humans are lucky, we may be able to achieve one day, but it will be by moving forwards, not backwards."
Ah, see, this is your problem is that you think we have moved forward, you think civilization is progress. If this way of life is so enjoyable then why do the !Kung, the bushmen, the awa, and all the other primitive tribes still resist civilization. The Jarawa have been interviewed and they realize what exists outside, they understand what civilization is and yet still refuse to be a part of it. Many Europeans left their civilized outposts in the 17th and 18th centuries to go and live with the Indians, and the Pilgrims committed genocide against the Indians because the pilgrim leaders couldn't stop the people from going and living wild with the Indians. When there the Indians captured people and exchanged the civilized prisoners for their prisoners, it was the prisoners that were Indian that were always thrilled to go back to their people, and it was those who were civilized that had to be forced to go back.
" I believe it is a more sophisticated AND more natural way than statism of any kind, and it is something that is worth working towards. Anarchists tend to disagree, however, on the best way to get us there, though it should be noted that not all options are violent ones. I don't advocate a slow reform, either."
You know, you live focusing on being sophisticated, I'll focus on bringing forth the crash of civilization. I want to live in a peaceful co-existance with everybody where there is no hierarchy, where we are all free and equal, and we are living at peace with nature as opposed to at war with it, and living a sustainable existance that will last us. I care about the most enjoyable life to live, and civilized life certainly isn't it.
"I want a social wake up call, not an apocalypse. That's all."
I don't want an apocalypse either. I wish that one day we would all wake up and say goodbye to civilization and things would be peaceful and everything would be great, we would work to restore the landbases that we live on and live in anarchy. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen and the reality is is that we are living an unsustainable lifestyle and we will continue to live it until things get so bad that we realize we can't or we end up killing ourselves off. Apocalypse is based off of an assumption everyone is going to die, and that's not at all it, yes, there will be people who die, but there will be people who die no matter what. You have failed to show me how industrialism and civilization can be made sustainable and none of you have named me one civilization which has been sustainable, thus proving none have existed.
Here's where: (just one
Here's where: (just one example)
"Agriculture brought forth things that anarchists are opposed to, government, hierarchy, inequality, private property."
I just applied your logic to intellect rather than agriculture. Agriculture does not CAUSE government. It should be noted that agriculture ALSO provides for anarchists many things that we support, such as self-reliance, community, and independence from corporations and statist powers. If you look at some of the functioning anarchist societies through history, you will find that many are agrarian.
You also argue that hierarchies appeared "with" civilization, so therefore civilization is the cause? You clearly don't understand causation. And that's exactly why the scientific method IS important, and it IS important to debate over who is being more rational, because if you lack the logical reasoning skills, you can argue all day and never even understand why you are wrong, and never achieve a falsifiable conclusion.
You have drastically oversimplified the world, in order to conform with your (almost religious) view that "civilization is parasitic." There are vast complexities of cause and effect that you are not accounting for.
Another issue here may be the way you choose define "civilization."
"you think civilization is progress" no I don't, nothing is so simple. But I am certainly not going to accept the notion that after this over-romanticized "collapse," all the chemicals, advanced diseases WE created, and all the results of industrialization are going to just disappear. "Civilization" is not necessarily "progress..." but time does move FORWARDS! Science got us into this mess, and science is the only thing that can get us safely out. The alternative, as the writer of this original article expressed, will not be pretty (though I disagree with him on some of his speculations about how it might go).
"I'll focus on bringing forth the crash of civilization."
Ok, and the rest of the anarchists, who disagree with you, will continue working towards eliminating Statism, and CREATING an Anarchist civilization.
Didn't many of the native americans have a "civilization" that was sustainable, if not actively beneficial for their environment? But that isn't a civilization by your definition, because it's not destructive, right? That's just one example. Though their social structures were often hierarchical, this hierarchy IS NOT a direct result of the civilization having existed (though I admit, it seems to be a tendency of most).
You have a problem with science but you fail to understand that what you are angry at is not science, but the irresponsible applications of science.
There can be sustainable energy, there can be anarchist civilizations, and there can be peace. If you want to throw in the towel already, that's fine, but you'll be of little use to the Anarchist movement.
You know, until you can
You know, until you can actually deconstruct my arguments without a simple "you're wrong", I'm not going to sit here and argue back and forth with you. I gave a definition of civilization, and I gave my thoughts. Before you say anything else perhaps it would be nice for you to share with us how your civilization be sustainable, share with us these dreams, share with me what energy is sustainable. You talk a lot of shit but you don't offer anything for solving the problems, you just continue to criticize and refuse to work towards solving the problems. You show me how industrialism can truly be sustainable. Show me how technology is the greatest thing and is going to save us, show me how science is going to save us. Stop talking out your ass and actually tell me.
No, native americans did not have civilization, and hierarchy didn't develop until agriculture. The Chief, the Big Man, the Shaman, they were authority figures but they had no power, thus they were not hierarchical. Once again, you make assumptions without knowing shit about anthropology.
"By your own logic it was
"By your own logic it was human intellect resulted in the creation of social hierarchies, so we should abolish intellect? Your getting a lot of your causation backwards
Here's where: (just one example)
'Agriculture brought forth things that anarchists are opposed to, government, hierarchy, inequality, private property.'
I just applied your logic to intellect rather than agriculture. Agriculture does not CAUSE government. It should be noted that agriculture ALSO provides for anarchists many things that we support, such as self-reliance, community, and independence from corporations and statist powers. If you look at some of the functioning anarchist societies through history, you will find that many are agrarian."
Prove to me that agriculture doesn't result in hierarchy and explain to me why hierarchy arose with agriculture.
Explain to me why
Explain to me why agriculture results in hierarchy? I understand that some anthropologists believe they are connected, because agriculture became the foundation for the earliest religions, however, others believe that hierarchy predates agriculture, along with religion and its archetypal symbols.
I warned you about science (especially the "soft sciences" like anthropology and sociology) don't accept anything as fact and don't stop learning. The FACT is, that anthropologists DON'T KNOW the details regarding the origins of civilization, and anyone who claims to "know" anything has stopped learning and is not a scientist.
Another question: even if agriculture DID lead (INDIRECTLY) into hierarchies, 8000 years ago (or whatever theory you're going by), would the same result occur today?
And how else can anarchist communities hope to self-sustain, to make an example against consumerism and dependence on the state? Shall we all become hunter-gatherers?
No, anthropologists don't
No, anthropologists don't know, but they have a pretty good idea. Regardless of what the religion of science tells us though, because in all truth, I don't want to be a scientist and I don't care for science or god, one can see what has come as a result of civilization. If you want to deny it fine, but don't attack me because by your own beliefs you can't believe that agriculture did or did not create hierarchy, nor can you believe that civilization does or does not result in government because science is always changing, so you have to be neutral by your own ideas.
"And how else can anarchist communities hope to self-sustain, to make an example against consumerism and dependence on the state? Shall we all become hunter-gatherers?"
Yes. That is the whole point of primitivism
Yes, I am rather neutral by
Yes, I am rather neutral by my own ideas. If by neutral you mean... not dogmatic. Willing to change my point of view. I will never stop learning, and I recognize the limitations of science to tell us anything about our world. But I don't hate science or view it as evil. I despise the way religion controls people and prevents them from feeling the need to question their environment, but I wouldn't call myself an atheist, necessarily... Intelligence is a result of nature. Sometimes I think that consciousness could be the universe's way of experiencing itself, without which (and quantum physics supports this) the universe could not theoretically exist.
The result of consciousness is science - we try to understand our world. Does this lead inevitably to governments, corporations and mass death (in that order)? Possibly. And if we don't kill ourselves, the environment (or lack thereof) certainly will. Another civilization rises and falls. We may not have been the first on this planet, for all science knows.
BTW, there is evidence that the earth is growing (look it up) which, if true, pretty much refutes everything we thought we knew about planet formation, gravity, and the structure of our planet - not to mention how old it is! (so much for science!)
For all you or I know, this phase of our conscious evolution could be a test. A simple question. Can you make it work, or was this consciousness just not meant to be? Are you the Earth's heart, or are you its burst-appendix?
The next phase might not just be "sustainable"... for all you or I know, it could be beneficial and necessary for the Earth's continued existence! Just because it hasn't happened before (in written history) doesn't mean that it can't. Whether you care to admit it or not, science and technology (when properly applied) CAN result in efficient ways of harvesting energy from sources (like the sun, or the tides) which are literally astronomical, and sustainable for the remainder of our planet's lifespan! Perhaps we just haven't worked up the resolve to do it yet. After all, there's not much funding for that sort of technology...
I am an anarchist because I have not given up hope in humanity's ability to live together in a society that respects individual freedom and personal responsibility, and collectively recognizes that it doesn't need a centralized power to dictate right from wrong, or the dominance of one individual over another. However, my point of departure from primitivism is that I think science could actually help us achieve it, if responsible individuals were making the decisions.
We are connected to the earth, the earth is a single living organism of which we (and our cities, like it or not) are a part. If we die of man made diseases, the Earth has killed us. If we nuke ourselves, the Earth has killed us. If we choose to become beneficial to ourselves and to the Earth, then the Earth has chosen to keep us.
That being said, you better believe I'm getting ready for the collapse! Because, while my viewpoint is still optimistic, my predictions are NOT.
"The next phase might not
"The next phase might not just be "sustainable"... for all you or I know, it could be beneficial and necessary for the Earth's continued existence! Just because it hasn't happened before (in written history) doesn't mean that it can't. Whether you care to admit it or not, science and technology (when properly applied) CAN result in efficient ways of harvesting energy from sources (like the sun, or the tides) which are literally astronomical, and sustainable for the remainder of our planet's lifespan! Perhaps we just haven't worked up the resolve to do it yet. After all, there's not much funding for that sort of technology..."
Read this closely: Green Energy is a Myth.
I've heard the same argument be used by you over and over and over again, need logic, science tells us all we need to know, green energy green energy green energy, civilization can be sustainable, lets JUST HOPE FOR IT TO HAPPEN! Now, you want to move around the subject and that's fine but I"m done replying so long as you are going to put your faith into civilization. I want to wild, and I want to be free. Even if civilization was sustainable, I wouldn't want to keep it cause that way of life isn't worth it man, freedom, wildness, that's where it's at, and if you want to continue to deny that civilizations kill the Earth (and no this isn't the only one, they all have) then go for it, but you clearly aren't willing to listen to anything that isn't based on hope for saving civilization. How sad.
-AP
You're ridiculous. You
You're ridiculous. You can't enter a debate and simply state things as fact. "Green energy is a myth" Well actually that's entirely false, green energy exists, it powers most life, and what you so condescendingly refer to as "nature". True that if someone said that civilization has a green energy source that would today be false, but that doesn't mean that the possibility doesn't exist, nor does it mean that it is unlikely considering all the forms of sustainable energy that actually do exist.
If YOU, don't want to live in civilization, then I wont tell you you have to, but don't tell me that I have to live in some physically dominated tribal existence. I enjoy abstract thought, and largely consider those abstractions to make up sapient beings, of which humans are one. I wouldn't give up my humanity simply to toil further, and repress creative thoughts in your anti-intellectual dystopia.
You can dismiss science and logic all that you'd like, but realize that the way such arguments come off to many rational people is simply that you are unwilling to critically examine your dogmatic belief systems.
Science also results in new
Science also results in new ways to fuck over the natural world. Ask the non-human primates that have had their brains opened up out of curiousity for science, or any other animals that Science has done vivisections on, I do believe that the beagles that have been tortured by science would agree with me that we don't need it. Science is only needed for civilized life, fuck civilization, rewild and resist!
The point to make that I
The point to make that I didn't make in my previous comment is that regardless of what all civilization requires and what all it doesn't, the fact is that those problems that I pointed out do come as a result of civilization. Yes, civilizations have existed without cell phones, without cars, but that doesn't mean that they haven't had destructive behavior towards the natural world. Every civilization has been unsustainable, civilization by nature is unsustainable and yet you think you can somehow make it sustainable? Give me a break. Those bad things come as a result of civilization, can you prove that they wouldn't exist without it? Can you show me evidence that cancer has existed prior to civilized way of life?
The question really comes down to whether or not civilized way of life is really even worth saving. Yet, you don't want to address that. There's a reason why so many Europeans abandoned their civilized outposts to go and run off and live with the Indians, civilized life is not worth it. Do you honestly want to continue to work 40 hour work weeks doing mindless work that has no value to it at all? I don't, and I don't care whether we exist with hierarchy or anarchy, I do not want to do that, and I don't agree with the slavery and domestication of every species on Earth. I would much rather be wild then civilized thank you, I'd rather have a better quality of life then what civilization can provide and I'd rather leave a healthy Earth to future generations.
My original response to this
My original response to this for whatever reason did not go through.
Now, I am not aware as to who you are, I assume you are the first one to comment, I am the second one. My comment was not directed towards you, it was directed towards the author of the article, and I assumed that the individual who has read the article hasn't generally done a lot of reading on the subject because it was so entrenched with a poor understanding of anarcho-primitivism and anti-civilization thought that it was ridiculous. Now your comments:
"First off civilization is not a monolithic construct of Euro-american design in 2008."
Never said it was. And no one else is saying that. Civilization has existed for about the past 10,000 years, no one is implying that it is some new thing and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make assumptions.
"It was built over thousands of years, it has seen many shapes, most of which do not have any of the things which you're complaints mention, excepting agriculture."
There has been many civilizations that have existed, but the one that I am attacking currently, the one which we are a part of, does have those complaints that I've mentioned. If you can somehow prove to me that they aren't removing mountain tops for coal, that cancer hasn't come solely with civilization, that honey bee's (as I believe was brought up by the other poster) aren't dying as a result of cell phone towers or genetically modified food, that the forests aren't being clear cut, and prove the other things wrong, then I'd be really fascinated to hear that. You can't though. You'd love to tell me that it's not a product of this civilization but it is. Lets not be in denial here, civilized life has no respect for the natural world, it creates a seperation between people and the natural world, and it is not based off of a sustainable way of living. Primitive life was sustainable with the natural world, and their way of life was apart of the natural world, ours is not, and this type of attitude does create the things that I mentioned. You think this is just primitivist bullshit? Watch the news at night, it is all over the place, the whole reason they are at war with Iraq is because it is the civilized thing to do. Civilization does require war, and it does require a destruction of the natural world. There is no getting around this. If you want to live a sustainable lifestyle, then that requires an end to civilization.
Your second point, don't take things farther than I have taken them. You know what I mean when I say energy so don't give me this shit, and if you are actually that stupid that you can't understand what I mean, then I don't know why you're arguing with me in the first place.
"Thirdly civilization is not the cause of all bad things. Civilization allows many of them to exist, but so does the planet earth. Simply because police came about after the development of civilization does not logically prove that they are a result. Police can't exist without the biosphere either, perhaps next you'll argue to abolish it."
Well, hell, if your house is on fire I can say that it's also because the house is there, and without the house being there, there would be no fire, so we shouldn't put out the fire. That wouldn't help you very much though, now would it? The same point goes with civilization. And yes, civilization is the cause of the majority of the bad things that exist, these problems did not exist in primitive times. Hierarchy, private property, war, disease, etc, all came forth with civilization, therefore, civilization is a cause of them, just like if a salmon dies in the turbines in a dam, the dam is the cause of its death.
"Fourthly sedentary society didn't even develop out of agriculture, many pacific north west natives were a sedentary people living off of fishing, without the use of agriculture."
Sedentary society did come forth as a result of the changing over from foraging societies to hunter-gatherer societies, this isn't primitivst bullshit, this is anthropology.
"Fifthly civilizations have already crumbled and rebuilt themselves differently. I wouldn't get so hopeful that a collapse will bring anything positive. Likely the outcome will be a wonderful new dark ages, full of post-industrial nightmare scenarios, and many delightful despots powered by the word of god to save us from the great disaster. No fuckin' thanks!"
Yes, and time and time again new civilizations have emerged and what has been the result of those civilizations? You name me one civilization that hasn't been based off of the destruction of the natural world, and I won't say anything else. You prove that to me, prove that they lived a sustainable lifestyle and I will never post here again. I never said that it would be glorious, it won't be at first probably, and I would probably be one of those people who would die. It is just the same as if we were to overthrow the government tommorow, anarchy wouldn't instantly happen. There are many visions of what it will (note will, as in, will happen, this isn't something that is a dream, civilization will collapse) be like after the collapse, we can't say for sure, no one can say whether it'll be great or it'll be worse. Overtime though, we can create a post-primitive society which can be more anarchist then any society you want to create within civilization. You act as if civilization is glorious and we need to keep it, and I'm not sure how anyone can think this. I've said it before and I'll say it again, civilization is not sustainable. Any way of life that isn't sustainable is eventually going to kill us all, and that way of life is based on a death wish. Apparently you'd rather live in a society with madcow disease, with bird flu, with cancer, pollution, cars, clear cuts, dioxins in mothers breast milk, technology (with all of its wonderful alienating and isolating features, not to mention the control it has over us), wars, and all the other wonderful things that come with civilization then actually try and create a truly anarchist society. Revolution alone cannot achieve anarchy, it never will happen so long as civilization stands.
I'm not saying we're going to bring down civilization though, and I don't think anyone is. Civilization will collapse all on its own, and our goal is to bring that collapse forth as quickly as possible and to aid in the collapse.
" Without actual scientific research into these issues speculation is poison. If you dismiss science as well then don't even bother responding with reactionary rhetorical arguments."
There are things that I agree with that science does, but overall I do dissagree with it. I don't mean to offend your religious beliefs and all, you and the Christians and the Buddhists, you can all have your religions but that shit just isn't for me. I don't need a god thanks.
Science has created the nuclear bomb, genetically modified plants, totalitarian relationships with the natural world, more advanced forms of war, napalm, and of course, lets not forget the cozy relationship your science has with animals with its torture of them. Anthropology is widely used within primitivism but it is not in the least neutral as anthropologists are aiding with the so-called war on terror.
"Anarchist need rational minds, not hocus pocus driven fantasies."
Anarchists need to discuss things, not be sectarian assholes. You don't want to discuss the implications of this culture and this civilization, you just want to go on in denial like so many others. Go read your Murray Bookchin and tell yourself everything is fine you asshole. You all want to act as if you are somehow above those of us who are anarcho-primitivists, somehow higher, yes? You are better than all of us, we are just nutty fools? Yeah, that's real anarchist of you to act that way to. I don't care what you believe in, whether you are a syndicalist or green anarchist, it doesn't matter, I'm trying to get across a point that civilization can't go on and shouldn't go on, I don't think I'm better than you, but these are things that need to be addressed and if you are just going to be some asshole in which the best way to respond to my comment is basically to say "you're wrong!", then you're apparently not very serious about things.
The following resources
The following resources might help you:
http://www.altpr.org/apr12/zerzan.html
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/dialog.htm
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/thesis.htm
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070416231818470
http://www.primitivism.com/sedentism.htm
http://www.primitivism.com/future-primitive.htm
www.primitivism.com
" it is entirely likely that
" it is entirely likely that a form of energy that is not destructive can be developed by living beings." Tell me why we need energy in the first place. What is the usefulness of having electricity? What, so we can watch TV? Play on the computer? Have more devices to distract us away from living our lives and to get us focused on mediums? I'm going to quote Derrick Jensen because he puts this well:
"We all face choices. We can have ice caps and polar bears, or we can have automobiles. We can have dams or we can have salmon. We can have irrigated wine from Mendocino and Sonoma counties, or we can have oil from beneath the oceans, or we can have whales. We can have cardboard boxes or we can have living forests. We can have computers and cancer clusters from the manufacture of those computers, or we can have neither. We can have electricity and a world devastated by mining, or we can have neither (and don't give me any nonsense about solar: you'll need copper for wiring, silicon for photovoltaics, metals, and plastics for appliances, which need to be manufactured and then transported to your home, and so on. Even solar electrical energy can never be sustainable because electricity and all uts accoutrements require an industrial infrastructure). We can have fruits, vegetables, and coffee brought to the U.S. from Latin America, or we can have at least somewhat intact human and nonhuman communities throughout that region...We can have cities and all they imply, or we can have a livable planet. We have "progress" and history, or we can have sustainability. We can have civilization, or we can have at least the possibility of a way of life not based on the violent theft of resources.
This is in no way abstract. It is physical. On a finite world, the forced and routine importation of resources is unsustainable. Duh."
There are tons of things which on the surface seem like they could be used for energy and wouldn't be bad for the environment but once you dig deeper, that's not true. Hell, those energy efficient lightbulbs have mercury in them. That ethanol which is so clean burning requires fossil fuels to make it, and the car that you are driving requires fossil fuels to make it, and once again requires the importation of resources to make them.
Your statement though assumes that we want to keep energy and probably assumes that we have to have it. However, this struggle is about more than energy. It is more than our energy practices which are destroying the Earth and that is what so many like you do not understand. It is the same as the liberals who believe that free trade is going to solve problems. You still have wage-slavery which you can't end through free trade, and there is still so many other problems with any type of labor. You need to look beyond the surface and see things farther in depth. The way of life that you are wanting to continue has grave consequences
"I think our best shot at
"I think our best shot at stopping the destruction of our biosphere and retaining a maximum number of intact eco-systems is powerful, irresistible gradualism."
Hahaha, you act like gradualism is this powerful thing which is going to solve all our problems! Yeah, because it's sure doing a helluva lot to protect us from global warming, isn't it though? Those hybrid cars have saved us, our planet is no longer being threatened! Get a grip man, the Earth is being killed off by civilization, I don't know if you really understand what civilization means. I'm anti-civilization but I'm not saying that the human race is a cancer, I'm saying this civilization is, and it needs to be destroyed before it destroys the whole human race.
"Nature herself operates gradually. It is Mankind that has been impetuous. If we work diligently and intelligently then we just might save civilization through massive cultural transformation. And if we fail then we might at least succeed in preserving enough of the life-world that those species that follow us will be able to continue the flowering of life on our planet."
You're not going to preserve life through civilization, civilization destroys life. Hundreds of species are going extinct every day. All but two bear species are endangered. Bengal tigers are endangered. There are species dying everyday and as the person above said, honey bee's are being killed as well as birds.
"I think that those who are dreaming of a world returned to its wilderness state are lovely, naive romantics – dangerous ones. Imagine 100 Chernobyl’s spewing indelible death. Imagine a landscape over-run with desperate and starving humans, wiping out one ecosystem after another. Imagine endless tribal wars where there are no restraints on the use of chemical and biological weapons. Imagine a failing industrial infrastructure seeping massive quantities of deadly toxins into the air, water and soil."
That is why we believe in rewilding with nature. No fully civilized human being can live in nature, no, which is why we have to start learning how to. There are still tons of edible plants in the wild that you probably have no idea about, there are edible mushrooms, the dandeline is a common weed that is edible and can be used for medicinal purposes. The industrial infrastructure is already seeping massive quantities of deadly toxins into the air, water, and soil, and chemical and biological weapons are already being used. You act as if civilization is this wonderful thing that has no diseases or anything and primitive life was this nasty brutish way of life (to quote one philosopher, and this has been proven wrong by the way). We need to ask what we can do to make life after the fall the best it can be. Those nuclear power plants will continue to melt down if we keep them going, but if we don't, I am curious how you can propose that it will happen? If we keep civilization up, we have to continue to live in fear of Earthquakes, tsunami's, and other natural disasters which threaten us becuase of our way of life. An earthquake in primitive times may have knocked down a tree which would kill a person, an earthquake in civilized times can knock down a skyscraper and kill thousands. Think about that.
How can you "rewild" an
How can you "rewild" an entire population, especially before this inevitable Judgement Day happens? Would you expect capitalists, politicians, police officers, right-wing fanatics, liberals, quilting enthusiasts, computer geeks, managers, social workers, or even other anarchists (since the majority of us think you're all a bunch of nutcases, anyway) give up everything for this primitive nightmare? Or maybe we can just be part of the 90% of the population which has to perish to make room for a hunter-gatherer society?
"An earthquake in primitive times may have knocked down a tree which would kill a person, an earthquake in civilized times can knock down a skyscraper and kill thousands."
Modern medicine is much more important to me than my fear of falling skyscrapers.
"...there are edible mushrooms..."
"...the dandeline is a common weed that is edible and can be used for medicinal purposes."
You can keep fighting for things like the dandelion, and we'll organize for things like anarchism.
I'm not attempting to rewild
I'm not attempting to rewild a whole population, you should rewild yourself in order to prepare better for the fall, my responsibility isn't to take care of you, I do have a responsibility to take care of the Earth.
"Modern medicine is much more important to me than my fear of falling skyscrapers."
Modern medicine is the cause of many of the diseases which it is trying to solve. I figured that would come up sooner or later by someone. The pharmeceutical industry puts out more pollution than any other industry, that pollution is causing diseases such as cancer and such. Therefore it's causing the same problems it's trying to solve. Furthermore, are you really that trusting of modern medicine? Christ, every single thing has a warning that comes with it, every medicine you take can cause a thousand other problems, "can cause death" yeah, that's a common one isn't it? "can cause heart injury" "if bleeding occurs, please consult a doctor" or it can cause damage to livers or kidneys or it can lead to a heart attack maybe, or gee, what else?
"You can keep fighting for things like the dandelion, and we'll organize for things like anarchism."
It doesn't matter in 10 years if we live in an anarchist society, a socialist society, a communist society, or capitalist society, if I can't breathe the air, drink the water, and go outside, none of it matters. If the natural world is destroyed as a result of civilization, then we too die, that's something that you should perhaps think about before you attack us. You can't have anarchy if you don't have the Earth to live on, what about that doesn't make sense to you? I'm fighting to bring down the cause of the hierarchy we all loathe so much, in order to live in a post-primitive anarchist society, I am speaking of ending all forms of domination in life, and more appropriately you can say that anarcho-primitivism goes far beyond any other branch of anarchy in analyzing hierarchy and domination, and in wishing to see a society without it, we also go much farther. You want to get rid of a few power structures, a few ways of domination in society, we want to get rid of it all. Don't act as if you are superior, cause if you still want a society based on the domination of humyns then you aren't wanting complete anarchy.
"Furthermore, are you really
"Furthermore, are you really that trusting of modern medicine? Christ, every single thing has a warning that comes with it, every medicine you take can cause a thousand other problems, "can cause death" yeah, that's a common one isn't it? "can cause heart injury" "if bleeding occurs, please consult a doctor" or it can cause damage to livers or kidneys or it can lead to a heart attack maybe, or gee, what else?"
I rarely, if ever, take prescription medicine. But if I had something seriously wrong with my body, I would gladly take it. If I had an infection that could cause blindness, I would take the antibiotics.
Medicines can cause things like heart injury, liver damage, etc., and I would be crazy to deny that. However, we have been able to cure tens of thousands of ailments, many of which plague underdeveloped countries. Simple things like leprosy, tapeworm, diarrhea, measles, C-sections... we can do things that would have been unheard of to primitive people... organ transplants, brain surgery, stem cells... for christ' sake, we can pull a shard of metal out a man's eyeball! And think of the things to come!
"If the natural world is destroyed as a result of civilization, then we too die, that's something that you should perhaps think about before you attack us."
I completely agree. There is an environmental crisis, and it does demand serious attention, but to abolish civilization? I believe that we (yes, we) can use technology and science to rebuild much of what has been destroyed. We see examples of this all over the country, but they are underfunded and have little/no government interest. (Libertarian) Socialism is the only means by which we will be able to put the time, manpower, and resources into rescuing the environment.
And what of all the technology which still exists? The "old" establishments will still create pollution, more so without attention to their operation. Nuclear reactors? Coal plants? Anything on the waterfront? Not to mention unregulated use of everything else still around. Without some sort of organization/system in place to regulate the use of technology/resources, you are in for even more environmental damage. I do not mean to place the industry on a pedestal, but I believe that government regulations have GREATLY reduced the amounts of pollutants in our air and water. The goal would be to remove its profit motive and to place its operation/safety in the hands of a larger community.
"...more appropriately you can say that anarcho-primitivism goes far beyond any other branch of anarchy in analyzing hierarchy and domination, and in wishing to see a society without it, we also go much farther."
Absolutely wrong. Primitivists accuse civilization of being the source of all oppression, but rarely if ever look at anything beyond this. Real analysis takes place in the real world; class, race, gender, location, etc etc. Primitivism analyzes the connections between two things:
1) A primitive society which existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, which may or may not have been egalitarian, which may or may not have had cancer, which may or may not have been short and brutish, and which may or may not have had anything to do with anarchism
and
2) A post-apocolyptic society which exists only in our imaginations, which may or may not be egalitarian, which may or may not have cancer, which may or may not be short and brutish, and which may or may not have anything to do with anarchism.
Comparing two things which may or may not exist is NOT analysis, it is science fiction.
"Don't act as if you are superior, cause if you still want a society based on the domination of humyns then you aren't wanting complete anarchy."
If one man finds a larger stick in a primitivist society, he is in a position to dominate another human being. Informal structure (as pushed by anti-civs) breed informal hierarchy in the short-run, and institutionalized hierarchy in the long-run. Blech. I don't think I have to defend myself here as an anarchist, so I won't
...and don't get so worked
...and don't get so worked up! I don't mean to attack you, just to debate.
Leaving aside some issues
Leaving aside some issues discussed here, I have to respond to this. While it is true that a post-apocolyptic society may or may not be what we think it will, the research on past and present 'primitive' societies is massive. They consistantly point to these societies as egalitarian, small, and relatively disease free. I am positive they got cancer because everyone gets cancer, people, dogs, birds, lizards, everyone. The short and brutish part you obviously got from 19th century eurocentric Hobbs. In point of fact, when Europeans really started interacting with Native Americans in the 1500's, the thing they wrote home about most was that while few Europeans had living grandparents, most Native Americans had living great-grandparents. The uncle of the famed Pocahontas went to war against the British when he was 77, the natives lost that war, so he attacked again 22 years later at age 99. Don't take my word for it, I have sources if you want 'em.
The problem with your
The problem with your argument is that you fail to recognize that no one is saying we are wanting to have a society completely modeled after primitive times. Modern medicine wasn't needed in primitive times because the diseases that exist today are a result of civilization, the common cold was brought with civilization. Furthermore, continuing civilization continues to create more diseases. There are wild plants though with medicinal purposes such as the dandeline as previously mentioned that can be used to treat cancer. If someone needs surgery though, no one is saying we're going to just let them die. If someone needs a metal shard pulled out of their eye (although someday we will not have metal) then why couldn't we take it out with the knowledge that we have to do that? Your analysis of primitive cultures is very racist and hierarchical, you put civilization as this superior way of life and you haven't done the research neccessary to examine the way primitive cultures lived.
"I completely agree. There is an environmental crisis, and it does demand serious attention, but to abolish civilization? I believe that we (yes, we) can use technology and science to rebuild much of what has been destroyed. We see examples of this all over the country, but they are underfunded and have little/no government interest. (Libertarian) Socialism is the only means by which we will be able to put the time, manpower, and resources into rescuing the environment."
Freud once said about civilization, "civilization is something which was imposed on a resisting majority by a minority which understood how to obtain possession of the means of power and coercion." You want to keep this system going, I want to abolish it. Technology requires industrialism, industrialism is not sustainable with the natural world, and neither are the solutions which you propose. Furthermore you're still wanting to base a world off of non-renewable resources which is based on an unsustainable way of life. All the solutions you propose are just ways to put off the problems that don't address sustainability. Here's the thing though, this isn't a question as to whether we can bring down civilization or not, this is a matter of civilization will crash, or lets put it, we are in the final stages of this civilization and it is crashing, it's what can we do to quicken the crash before it does more damage to this Earth and its people. You want to rescue the environment which means you want to exist outside of the natural world, you want there to be nature and civilization, which doesn't work because you don't have the relationship with the Earth, you will result in abusing the Earth. In a post-primitive society we won't need to rescue the environment, we will enter into a relationship with it that is sustainable, you want to continue an unsustainable way of life hoping that you can put band-aids on the problems and that'll solve everything, and it won't.
"And what of all the technology which still exists? The "old" establishments will still create pollution, more so without attention to their operation. Nuclear reactors? Coal plants? Anything on the waterfront? Not to mention unregulated use of everything else still around. Without some sort of organization/system in place to regulate the use of technology/resources, you are in for even more environmental damage. I do not mean to place the industry on a pedestal, but I believe that government regulations have GREATLY reduced the amounts of pollutants in our air and water. The goal would be to remove its profit motive and to place its operation/safety in the hands of a larger community."
Here's the thing, maybe you should start to think of what we can do with those old establishments instead of attacking me. Your solution of leaving them running isn't going to work, and coal plants are not going to exist much longer (coal is a finite resource), so what do we do? Ask yourself that question and get back to me. Leaving them running certainly isn't a solution, where are you going to put all that toxic waste that comes out of the nuclear power plants, oh, and lets not forget Chernobyl which everyone wants to bring up, lets not forget how dangerous nuclear power is. If there are pollutants that will come from them when they are shut down (which I'd like to see your source on this) then they will be far less than if we keep them running. To even suggest that we keep coal in a civilized nation is madness and stupidity. Fossil fuels are what is causing the global warming problem. Plus you're still wanting to import resources, and the importation of resources is based on unsustainable lifestyle (more on this towards the end)
"Primitivists accuse civilization of being the source of all oppression, but rarely if ever look at anything beyond this. Real analysis takes place in the real world; class, race, gender, location, etc etc. Primitivism analyzes the connections between two things:
1) A primitive society which existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, which may or may not have been egalitarian, which may or may not have had cancer, which may or may not have been short and brutish, and which may or may not have had anything to do with anarchism"
Um, actually there still are primitive societies today. There are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert, Mbuti, the !Kung, there are the Jarawas (http://www.greenanarchy.org/index.php?action=viewwritingdetail&writingId=153) and there are other primitive cultures that still exist some of which haven't come in contact with civilization at all. The aborigines were a primitive culture as well for many years and existed in an anarchist way. Anthropology has proven wrong Hobbes myth that primitive life was "brutish, and short". And yes, they were egalitarian, and no, they did not have war, and no they didn't have cancer, I would advice you to at least do the research on something like this before you speak that way you're not talking out your ass. The work of Richard B. Lee and Marshall Sahlins would be a good start, although generally anthropology backs up all the claims of primitivism. This isn't even primitivist bullshit that primitive cultures lived in anarchy, there are plenty of anarchists who will mention primitive societies as examples. I'm talking about living in a way that worked for 99% of the humyn existance and you're talking about continuing with a way that has only existed for 1% and is continuing to threaten the planet and all the life on this Earth.
"2) A post-apocolyptic society which exists only in our imaginations, which may or may not be egalitarian, which may or may not have cancer, which may or may not be short and brutish, and which may or may not have anything to do with anarchism.
Comparing two things which may or may not exist is NOT analysis, it is science fiction."
Hey, you're the one talking out your ass here. I can back up all of my facts if needed. I can provide you with sources that aren't anarchist or primitivist and have no desire to see the end of civilization, I am using the actual work of this civilization to critique it, civilizations own anthropologists are backing up these claims. So don't give me any bullshit about science fiction just because you're too god damned lazy to go and do the research.
"
If one man finds a larger stick in a primitivist society, he is in a position to dominate another human being. Informal structure (as pushed by anti-civs) breed informal hierarchy in the short-run, and institutionalized hierarchy in the long-run. Blech. I don't think I have to defend myself here as an anarchist, so I won't"
Ok, here we go. You want to critique primitivist societies as if they create violence and hierarchy when both of those things are characteristics of civilization. Hierarchy did not exist prior to civilizatoin, and widespread organized violence has only existed within civilization. Lets just go ahead and define civilization, and I'll even quote someone else for you since you don't want to believe me. Derrick Jensen's definition of civilization (which is backed up both historically and linguistically) is "civilization is a way of life characterized by the growth of cities. Cities being a collection of people living large enough in number to require the importation of resources. Two things happen as soon as you require the importation of resources, one is that your way of living can never be sustainable because if you require the importation of resources it means you denuded the landscape of that particular landscape and when your city grows you will denute an ever larger area if you require it...Your way of living must be based on violence because if you require the importation of resources and the people in the watershed won't share them, you're going to have to take them." It goes without saying that once you require the importation of resources hierarchy is needed, government is needed. Who is going to tell these other people to give up their resources if they do not wish to? Cellphone towers kill between 5 and 50 million migratory songbirds every year. The ratio of human attacks on sharks compared to shark attacks on humans is 20 million to 1. 46,000 people die everyyear in the US becuase of automobile accidents. 15,000 people die every 2 weeks because of preventable cancer. How many people will die keeping your electricity going? How many people will die picking up your trash? Millions have died as a result of the war on terror. Millions died as a result of World War II. Millions died as a result of World War I. What about DDT? That's something this civilization has given us. Or better yet, what about those great pesticides in our food? Aren't those great? There are carcinogens in the air we breathe,in the food we eat, and the water we drink, and you are going to seriously make an argument towards keeping this civilization?
How about this, where is your shirt made? What about that food you buy, where did that come from? Do you drink coffee? Do you eat bananas? Oh wait, those are all not going to exist in your utopia anarchist society right? People are just going to voluntarily give up those goods. Yeah, right, get real. If you want to continue this way of life you are going to require violence.
Primitive cultures did not have domination and they did not have hierarchy, I realize you haven't done the research to know this but I would once again suggest you do before you make such claims. Lets say this though, if one man finds a larger gun in a civilized society, he is in a position to dominate another human being. If one man has technological skills that the other doesn't in a civilized society he is in a position to dominate another human being. If one man has a knife in a civilized society, he is in a position to dominate another human being. If one man has an airplane loaded with guns and bombs in a civilized society, he is in a position to dominate someone else. Division of labor is required in civilized life, division of labor creates domination and power. Socialism loves a division of labor without taking a look at the fact that it is one thing that has gotten us into this position of power. The stick argument is ridiculous, I can find a large stick in civilized society, am I going to dominate somebody else? Would you seriously back down from a fight just because someone has a stick? And if you're going to go that route then what would stop someone from taking out a gun to kill someone else in a civilized anarchist society (if such a thing can exist even)? Who's going to stop them? Yes, capitalism breeds inequality which is the cause of it all, but it goes further than that, it is this civilization that breeds inequality, and in the society I vision we will all be equal, and we will all be free.
You can say what you want but there is no libertarian socialist critique of domestication, there is no critique of the control that this civilization has over us, there is no critique of technology which is a means to control people, etc. No one else wants to even look back to see what caused hierarchy in the first place, you just want to go along your happy little way thinking everything is fine.
Lets say you can continue civilized life though and its not going to crash. Tell me, what is worth saving? What is worth holding onto? All the mediums of television and computer which screen you from living life? Which control you? Power which requires a division of labor and long work weeks. Work in general (cause primitivist societies didn't really work, they hunted and gathered but that was more like play)? War? I mean, what is it? And tell me when you're going to finally sya that this civilization has gone to far. When will you finally say that this is enough? Open your eyes and look around you and see what this civilization causes, your as bad as those who are believing that we can't live without the government, that we somehow need it, you're being told the same thing by the architects of this civilization and believing it.
First off, calling an
First off, calling an anarchist racist and telling him that he is pro-hierarchy is NOT a proper way to go about a debate, and it says a lot about you.
"The problem with your argument is that you fail to recognize that no one is saying we are wanting to have a society completely modeled after primitive times."
I've heard at least a hundred times, "we're not going backwards, we're going forwards." But a lot of the primitivist tripe is based on scant evidence and an hyped up vision of apocalypse.
"If someone needs a metal shard pulled out of their eye (although someday we will not have metal) then why couldn't we take it out with the knowledge that we have to do that?"
Because it would take antibiotics? Sterilized surgical tools? Trained doctors? An institution to teach the doctors in? A place to perform the surgery? All of which require vast amounts of technology and infrastructure.
"Your analysis of primitive cultures is very racist and hierarchical..."
YOU need to calm down like everyone else here has. Seriously.
"...you haven't done the research neccessary to examine the way primitive cultures lived."
I've read numerous articles, books, ethnographies, took Anthropology & Cultural Anthropology in college, and I'm very interested in egalitarian cultures. HOWEVER, I live in the real modern world, where real solutions have to be created to solve real problems. Nihilism is not a solution to anything, its a cop-out. Real theory takes much more than "fuck it, lets burn down society!"
"You want to keep this system going, I want to abolish it."
You want to abolish almost everything without any thought to the consequences. I want to abolish the things which impose authority on my life, not skyscrapers and penicillin.
"You want to rescue the environment which means you want to exist outside of the natural world, you want there to be nature and civilization, which doesn't work because you don't have the relationship with the Earth, you will result in abusing the Earth."
Straw-man argument. Try again.
"Here's the thing, maybe you should start to think of what we can do with those old establishments instead of attacking me. Your solution of leaving them running isn't going to work, and coal plants are not going to exist much longer (coal is a finite resource), so what do we do? Ask yourself that question and get back to me."
We can greatly reduce our dependency on non-renewable resources, but this option is not available in any market economy. Thats my solution. We have barely touched on research into renewable resources... imagine what we've discovered in the last 20 years, and what we could come up with in the next few decades.
"Leaving them running certainly isn't a solution, where are you going to put all that toxic waste that comes out of the nuclear power plants, oh, and lets not forget Chernobyl which everyone wants to bring up, lets not forget how dangerous nuclear power is. If there are pollutants that will come from them when they are shut down (which I'd like to see your source on this) then they will be far less than if we keep them running."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown
Nuclear plants require constant supervision. Period.
"Um, actually there still are primitive societies today. There are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert, Mbuti, the !Kung, there are the Jarawas..."
These cultures are quickly dying out, and one of the biggest problems is that members of these societies are turning over to "civilization." I know who the !Kung are, who the Mbuti are... you aren't the only person with access to this information! But if the !Kung, the most egalitarian culture known to man, cannot keep its members from using the benefits of a modern society, what is to stop your primitivist society from doing the same? Nothing short of eco-fascism could achieve this.
"And yes, they were egalitarian..."
Actually, many were egalitarian... but not all. And egalitarian does not imply anarchist.
"and no, they did not have war"
...and actually, some cultures do not have war. One of anthropology's greatest achievements is noting that war is NOT human nature, and I applaud that. But conflicts between tribes are often bloody. Denying that means you are denying mountains of documented history.
"...and no they didn't have cancer..."
Even your good friend Zerzan could not prove this... nobody can. Animals get cancer all the time.
"I would advice you to at least do the research on something like this before you speak that way you're not talking out your ass. The work of Richard B. Lee and Marshall Sahlins would be a good start, although generally anthropology backs up all the claims of primitivism."
Again, I've done plenty of research, but maybe not enough to reach your elitist standards of debate. Get over yourself.
"This isn't even primitivist bullshit that primitive cultures lived in anarchy, there are plenty of anarchists who will mention primitive societies as examples."
Including me! But I would not use the primitive model as a blueprint for a world with 6 BILLION people, nor would I throw away all the positive aspects of an industrial society.
"Hey, you're the one talking out your ass here. I can back up all of my facts if needed."
I can provide you with sources that aren't anarchist or primitivist and have no desire to see the end of civilization, I am using the actual work of this civilization to critique it, civilizations own anthropologists are backing up these claims. So don't give me any bullshit about science fiction just because you're too god damned lazy to go and do the research."
You need to realize that others have also done research, that we have different opinions, that we can come from different conclusions from the same evidence, that you aren't right in every situation... you're dogmatic and close-minded.
"Ok, here we go. You want to critique primitivist societies as if they create violence and hierarchy when both of those things are characteristics of civilization. Hierarchy did not exist prior to civilizatoin,"
Then you need to define hierarchy... this would deny the existence of any formal leadership or sexism prior to agriculture. Find someone who will agree with you on this.
"...and widespread organized violence has only existed within civilization."
This is not the fault of civilization, but is only true because only a highly organized state could achieve something like this. Not a reason to be against civilization, but rather to be against all the complex factors involved in war and conflict.
"It goes without saying that once you require the importation of resources hierarchy is needed, government is needed."
Absolutely not. Syndicalism, communism, what have you, can achieve the same results. You're comparing apples and pears.
"Cellphone towers kill between 5 and 50 million migratory songbirds every year. The ratio of human attacks on sharks compared to shark attacks on humans is 20 million to 1. 46,000 people die everyyear in the US becuase of automobile accidents. 15,000 people die every 2 weeks because of preventable cancer. How many people will die keeping your electricity going? How many people will die picking up your trash?"
These are all problems that an organized community needs to address. Saying "fuck it all" is not only counterproductive but its an easy way to admit that you don't have any answers. There are complex answers to things like automobile accidents and cell phone usage without resorting to abolishing civilization. That's ridiculous.
"Oh wait, those are all not going to exist in your utopia anarchist society right? People are just going to voluntarily give up those goods."
Bananas and shirts will exist in my "utopia anarchist society." So will medicine, language, culture, art, security, and thousands of other things that a conflicted primitivist society could not obtain.
"If one man has a knife in a civilized society, he is in a position to dominate another human being."
But this is multiplied a thousand times over in a primitivist society, where communities (much less individuals) would not have the means to protect themselves. Especially since the technology (guns, tanks, knifes etc) would still exist in the real world, and would be readily available to those who want to search the rubble for them. In today's society, you cannot simply jump a fence to acquire a tank or open your pantry to find an AK-47. I believe that community self-defense and formal organization is NECESSARY to prevent domination... ignoring all the weapons currently available is not going to do anything.
"You can say what you want but there is no libertarian socialist critique of domestication, there is no critique of the control that this civilization has over us, there is no critique of technology which is a means to control people, etc. No one else wants to even look back to see what caused hierarchy in the first place, you just want to go along your happy little way thinking everything is fine."
Since you're a nihilist and not an anarchist, I would assume that you don't have access to all the literature and position papers written on this. Domestication? The Situationists. Technology? Social ecologists. Hierarchy? Every single anarchist, ever.
"Lets say you can continue civilized life though and its not going to crash. Tell me, what is worth saving? What is worth holding onto?"
All of my friends, my family, my coworkers, for one. I doubt they would survive the primitivist purge.
Yes, you are racist, I will
Yes, you are racist, I will accuse you of that because your way of talking about indigenous cultures is as if they were stupid, violence, and fools. You put yourself in a position above them as civilized. These are both social hierarchies.
I'm not going to argue on all of your comments because most of them are filled with non-sense. I accuse you of not doing the research because you are still going along with the ideas of Hobbs that life during primitive cultures were nasty, brutish and short. Tribal wars didn't exist, archaeology can prove this by looking at the remains of those who died. War came with agriculture, and a settled existance because with this, ideas of private property and ownership came forth so there was suddenly things to fight over and kill one another over.
"Bananas and shirts will exist in my "utopia anarchist society." So will medicine, language, culture, art, security, and thousands of other things that a conflicted primitivist society could not obtain."
Hahahaha. Well, medicine, language, culture, art (although in a different way than you would have it), and security (well lets put it there wasn't really a need for it) all existed in primitive cultures. Perhaps you should retake those anthropology classes again. Anyways, the Awa tribe which is a hunter-gatherer tribe that lives in the Amazon actually eats bananas. If you want all of the modern pleasures to exist still then you must want the violence to go along with it because without violence you won't have those things. Violence has to be used to get coffee. Hell, chocolate is an example, do you know of the child slavery that is involved in the chocolate you eat? If you buy bananas, chances are you are funding a terrorist organization. Lets say that we do have anarchy here in the USA in 10 years though and everything miraculously works out and everything and the natural world isn't fucked over, how are you going to get those bananas? With no government there is no one to force the population to give you bananas, what if they want to keep the bananas for themselves? Oh, also since we are going to be living sustainably, how are you going to feed the whole world population without using pesticides which cause cancer inevitably? If those populations that have the bananas refuse to give them up, how are you going to get them? The same goes with everything else. Lets go with cars since you probably want to keep cars, how are you going to create the actual cars? Oil will be gone by that time, plus you can't use fossil fuels anyways cause you're wanting to live sustainably. And you're going to put forth that much labor into creating the cars in the first place? And what are we going to use for the cars? You're still requiring so much labor for everything that you're wanting to do all for these modern comforts which aren't needed, and I'll tell you right now, that I for one, will not go into the mines to get the elements needed for the shit you want just so you can have all of these bullshit extra spoils which aren't needed.
"'Lets say you can continue civilized life though and its not going to crash. Tell me, what is worth saving? What is worth holding onto?'
All of my friends, my family, my coworkers, for one. I doubt they would survive the primitivist purge."
Your friends, family, and coworkers can exist outside of civilization, civilization needs you, you don't need civilization. Try again, what do you want to keep, tv? Computers? Cars? What is it that your holding onto that you are so afraid to get rid of? Afraid to not have your life mediated? How are you going to prevent my family and friends from dying from global warming or some other catastrophic event because you wnated a lifestyle that isn't sustainable with the Earth?
The tribes that you speak of that were at war were not nomadic foragers. Let me guess, you want to use someone like the Aztects as an example for their headhunting? Aztecs weren't primitive, they were civilized, but even so you can't compare their small scaled violence to the violence of this civilization, you don't have much room to talk, this is the only civilization to ever use nuclear bombs after all. This civilization also has had the holocaust.
I never said that primitive
I never said that primitive cultures were "stupid, violen[t], and fool[ish]", I just said that they hold many of the things we find undesirable as anarchists, like war and hierarchy. Have I suggested that war and hierarchy don't exist in developed countries?
I also never said that primitive life was "nasty, brutish and short." You've created words for me and put yourself on an "intellectual" pedestal.
"Violence has to be used to get coffee. Hell, chocolate is an example, do you know of the child slavery that is involved in the chocolate you eat? If you buy bananas, chances are you are funding a terrorist organization."
Capitalism? Will child slavery exist in a society without a drive for profit? Think, man.
"With no government there is no one to force the population to give you bananas, what if they want to keep the bananas for themselves?"
Anarchists have been interested in reciprocal economies for as long as anarchism has existed... its libertarian SOCIALISM, after all. You have no knowledge of anarchist theory and should stick to your "The End Is Coming" shtick.
"You're still requiring so much labor for everything that you're wanting to do all for these modern comforts which aren't needed, and I'll tell you right now, that I for one, will not go into the mines to get the elements needed for the shit you want just so you can have all of these bullshit extra spoils which aren't needed."
Again, economy, advances in technology, and the fact that our workplaces will be centered more around safety than profit.
"Your friends, family, and coworkers can exist outside of civilization, civilization needs you, you don't need civilization."
NOT if the world can only support 10% of its current population in your magical primitive kingdom. I don't want my family to die, I don't want anyone else's family to die. You would have them sacrificed for a greater good.
Over the last few days you've established yourself as a close-minded, spiteful nihilist with no real interest in mutual aid or a sustainable future. You've thrown the word "racist" and "fascist" around like a 15 year old punk.
Please, do us all a favor and go back to college. Take something more than anthropology, and widen your horizons. Sticking to a few apocalyptic studies by a few scientists (while ignoring countless others) has left you a complete asshole.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown
Nuclear plants require constant supervision. Period."
If they are left running, then yes. I don't want nuclear power. I don't want energy at all whether it's "green" (what a joke!) or not.
Who will supervise them in your anarchist utopia? What if no one wants to supervise them and take the risk? Are you going to force them to?
No, they need supervision to
No, they need supervision to not create a huge environmental disaster, regardless of whether they are running or not.
Modern medicine isn't
Modern medicine isn't sustainable either, therefore is based on the destruction of the world, and where does that leave us?
To the Primitivists: Modern
To the Primitivists:
Modern medicine is destructive to us, and to nature, because it has been deliberately made to be so. As with many of the aspects of our society that you primitivists complain about, modern medicine has been hijacked by elites and remade into a parasitic corporate monster, whose secondary purpose (after profit) is EUGENICS. You are right that cancer was either rare or nonexistant before industrialization, but have you ever questioned whether this was an accident? You think they might have cured it? Would they have released that cure? The top of the pyramid wants to keep us sick, poor and desperate, in order to maintain control. Why do you think the Rockefellers funded the Human Genome project?
How else can you control a population through drugs? Well, attack people's minds for long enough, and they'll be begging for their Prozac. But for those who don't, we have fluoridation of water. And street drugs.
The neurotoxins in our water, food, soil, even our clothes, possibly our air... these aren't only there as a side-effect of mass manufacturing. To a certain degree, these chemicals are allowed, and even encouraged. We are being poisoned by the same people who sell the remedies (but never the cure).
So, you must understand, that while our society appears to be on a destructive course, this is not our natural tendency. Before you call for the end of civilization, please know that it was not supposed to be this way. As an Anarchist, I've always believed that humans are not naturally destructive and warlike. We are not naturally ignorant and alienated. We have been taught to be this way. We have been told not to trust our neighbors, and constantly (artificially) reminded that the world is a dangerous place, and we need the State to protect us. This is done to prevent us from forming any real sense community, to keep us from trusting our neighbors, becoming self-aware individuals, and working together to abolish the State, which should be our natural tendency.
Corporations and Central Bankers are the parasites! Not humans! We have allowed ourselves to be UNWITTINGLY ENSLAVED, and we now face the ultimate culmination of the very threat of Statism and hierarchy that we were warned about in Anarchism 101!!!
Divide and conquer. False-flag attacks. WWI. WWII. The same people are always behind it: people like the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties, Andrew Carnegie, and today, members of the CFR. It's all designed to lead up to one world government under one world currency. Modern wars are always engineered, launched under false pretenses, and engaged for reasons OTHER than what we are told. Otherwise, populations would never allow wars to occur.
9-11: FALSE FLAG.
IRAQ: NOT JUST MISMANAGED. DELIBERATELY MISMANAGED.
AL-QAEDA: CIA, MI5, Mossad.
This just in: Terrorism is a fucking illusion. It's all designed to destabilize the Mid-East, because some of those countries didn't want to play ball with the NWO. And if they can't curb Khomeini and Ahmadinejad, or replace them with a puppet gov't, they'll keep fabricating intelligence and posturing until they can raise enough support for UN military action against Iran.
The course of mankind is currently being shaped by a few thousand people, and they are TRYING TO RUN IT INTO THE GROUND. I believe it was Nick Rockefeller who said that the intention is to reduce the population of the earth by about 85% by 2029, and then "rescue" the survivors by imposing one world government where the masses are hopelessly controlled by the few. I don't know if that is accurate, but I imagine that it'd be a lot easier to control 800M people than 6 billion.
You see, like you Primitivists, they too view the ecosystem as unable to support the population, but they want to take matters into their own hands.
How could they do it? Believe me, they have the means. They have options. Nuclear conflict is just one of them. You primitivists are just playing right into their hands, you seem to be welcoming this with open arms!
If only more Anarchists were aware of these things.
Solidarity,
-Oishi
www.neithercorp.us
The diseases you speak of
The diseases you speak of aren't the result of some giant conspiracy. They are a result of industrialism, yes, we both agree on this. It is also a required part of industrialism as well, as they do intentionally have to put out these toxins into the air for us to breathe, into the water for us to drink, and they do poison the land which we survive on. Many want to continue with industrialism though and think that somehow life will be better without looking at what industrial civilization causes.
"So, you must understand, that while our society appears to be on a destructive course, this is not our natural tendency. Before you call for the end of civilization, please know that it was not supposed to be this way."
I agree and dissagre with you. Yes, it is not our natural tendency to destroy the Earth, it isn't our natural tendency to poison the land that we need to live off of and the air we need to breathe and it isn't our natural tendency to have any of this shit that we do. We have been stripped of our nature though, domesticated if you will, as civilization has brought free and natural dimensions under control for the sake of those in power.
"As an Anarchist, I've always believed that humans are not naturally destructive and warlike. We are not naturally ignorant and alienated. We have been taught to be this way. We have been told not to trust our neighbors, and constantly (artificially) reminded that the world is a dangerous place, and we need the State to protect us. This is done to prevent us from forming any real sense community, to keep us from trusting our neighbors, becoming self-aware individuals, and working together to abolish the State, which should be our natural tendency."
I agree with that, but we cannot have communities so long as we have cities. I want a world based on communities, but a city is a toxic mimicry of a city. Likewise though, we are also being told that we can't live without civilization, so while many anarchists see that this myth that the government tells us that we can't live without government is false, many aren't going far enough to realize that we have also been indoctrinated with this idea that we can't live without civilization when in fact we have only lived with civilizations for 10,000 years, which means that 99% of our existance was without civilization. I agree that the State needs to be abolished but lets also look beyond that and examine the forms of domination that civilization creates. I haven't seen one person who has agreed with me that humyn beings should not be domesticated, ok, domestication is a form of control and domination, this is something all anarchists should be against. Division of labor is something that leads to someone having power over someone else, it leads to domination as well. Division of labor isn't even neccessary or desirable though, as we could have a world without it where life would be much easier.
I mean, cmon, even if you believe that civilization can exist, none of you are willing to look at the problems it creates and the domination it creates. Too many are willing to narrow mindedly think that all of our problems would be solved by overthrowing the government and abolishing capitalism and I'm sorry but this is a dream, and other forms of domination which exist as a result of this civilization need to be addressed. None of you are willing to even critique technology and science, you just want to follow them blindly like Christians follow God, and the same with civilization as a whole. You've created gods out of Science, Technology, and Civilization, and you can't even realize it.
The thing is that you all criticize everything we say, but you can't prove that your way of life is really that much better. How can you even make an argument for keeping something which has never existed without hierarchy, and be naive enough to think that you can make it happen? How can you make an argument for keeping something which is going to destroy the natural world if it continues on, lead to the deaths of millions of species (including humyns perhaps), continue to create more diseases, continue to lead to poverty, and so many other problems. I mean, cmon, the ice caps are melting, the forests are being clear cut, the oceans are being killed, the ocean levels are rising, polar bears are facing extinction, panda bears are facing extinction, salmon populations obviously aren't thriving and neither are tuna populations, and you all want to act like everything is fine and the problem can be solved by...? Well, you never really say how it can be solved but you are quick to criticize those of us who say that we need to get rid of civilization, you just like to tell us what we can't do, never to offer any solutions to the problems yourselves and never show how your way of life can be sustainable. Prove to me that civilization can be sustainable, we all know primitive life can be sustainable, no one has so far argued that with me (and I hope no one would be stupid enough to argue that), so the burden is on you to prove it. This whole thing is regarding the environment, and the only thing I hear coming out of you people who aren't primitivists or anti-civilization is that we can't get rid of civilizatoin. That is all that you ever say is that getting rid of civilization isn't the solution, and you further neglect the fact that civilization will eventually crash, apparenlty you don't care.
"The course of mankind is currently being shaped by a few thousand people, and they are TRYING TO RUN IT INTO THE GROUND. I believe it was Nick Rockefeller who said that the intention is to reduce the population of the earth by about 85% by 2029, and then "rescue" the survivors by imposing one world government where the masses are hopelessly controlled by the few. I don't know if that is accurate, but I imagine that it'd be a lot easier to control 800M people than 6 billion.
You see, like you Primitivists, they too view the ecosystem as unable to support the population, but they want to take matters into their own hands."
Give me a break. There are anarchists that aren't primitivists who recognize that the population needs to go down. We have exceeded our carrying capacity, even civilized scientists recognize this. The planet cannot support us at this rate, and we are only going to cause continuous harm. Just because Rockefeller wants the population size to be reduced and anarcho-primitivists want the population size to be reduced doesn't mean that we're falling right into his hands, don't give me that bullshit. Fascists want this government to fall, anarchists want this government to fall, but obviously they don't want the same thing so don't give me that load of shit line, that's bullshit to even bring up.
the thing is, regardless of
the thing is, regardless of how the author feels about civilization, no one has addressed what this article was really about. I know the author was responding to the Derrick Jensen statement that so many of us regurgitate (jensen wasnt the first to say it though, just that so many green anarchists seem to quote him as if he wrote the bible). 'the sooner we bring down civilization, the more (insert embelmatic species) we'll have left."
and so dani just wanted to know, well, if we remove law and government and authority from the picture, how do we stop people from using nuclear weapons? how do we stop tyrants from taking power that governments are currently preventing them from seizing?
what does anthropology tell us about that?
This is a great discussion.
This is a great discussion. One generalization I can make about anarchists... we are well spoken, we are well read, and we debate with passion and gusto! If only we could agree, and direct all this energy into a collective force...
I think the author made some valid points, though I don't entirely agree with all of his predictions.
Let's take a hypothetical: humanity is wiped out in 5 days by some disease that only affects us. What happens to the ecosystem?
Entire books have been written on this subject (which I have admittedly not read). One prediction is that domesticated animals and livestock will be either starve or be eaten by predators in another week, so say goodbye to them first!
One other point (one that I had not considered) is that, without us to maintain them, over 5000 nuclear reactors will go critical. That won't be good for the environment!
It is true that if this happened sooner, rather than later, the biosphere would have a better chance of recovering. BUT ONLY IF YOU ASSUME THAT CURRENT TRENDS CANNOT BE CORRECTED! I would argue that if people were in control of their society, rather than people and society being controlled by corporations and elitists, we would have the power and knowledge to correct what is currently an unsustainable system.
For example: our monetary system is unsustainable. Not because monetary systems in general are always destined to fail, but rather because an international CONSPIRACY of central bankers EXISTS, and they have CHOSEN this system because it empowers them to control governments quietly, behind the scenes, and because it enslaves the rest of us without our knowledge. If the people were aware of this, they could CHOOSE to enact a sustainable (non-inflationary) monetary system.
My point on primitivism is that it is easy to look at the world and conclude that modern society is dangerous to itself and to the environment. It is very dangerous! But its poisonous nature is not entirely accidental or incidental, or simply a side-effect of modernization. Some of it IS planned. This claim may not make sense, until you understand why.
A whole lot of waste is caused by consumerism, right? Did you know that 99% of what Americans buy is in a landfill within 6 months? Although it is fashionable to argue otherwise, I don't think Americans are naturally this ignorant. We were TRAINED and CONDITIONED to be consumers, and that IS part of a conspiracy. Our culture of debt and waste is part of the very method by which we are controlled. So, in my view, waste is a result of consumerism, but you need to connect the dots one step further, and recognize that the consumerism causing the waste is a direct result of the decisions of a minority. They control the U.S. (soon to be part of the NAU) primarily by controlling its currency, and they intend to one day control the world by use of similar methods.
It's important that we recognize what we're up against, so that we can be properly equipped to fight it!
In response to the other fellow, I didn't at all mean to imply that primitivists are advocates of one world government! Obviously nothing could be farther from the truth! However, what I wanted everyone to understand is this: a nuclear or biological catastrophe is a one way ticket to a New World Order, not peaceful anarchic primitivism. Is this glamorization of the apocalypse we are seeing in our culture a result of our people sensing their own impending doom, or are we being psychologically prepared for events that have been planned?
One more thing... "How do we stop tyrants from taking power that governments are currently preventing them from seizing?"
Which governments do you mean? lol... I suppose if all governments were abolished, there would be a power vacuum and a LOT of weapons still lying around, so someone would get the idea... this is just another reason why we can't just "shut the system off." No, we need to come together and take responsibility for it, and work together to destroy all these weapons, properly dismantle our reactors, and generally do our best ensure that the transition to a peaceful and sustainable society is a smooth one.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater!
CHeers!
-Oishi
Oishi- You speak about
Oishi-
You speak about consumerism and the waste it creates which I'm not about to argue on. But the point to be made here is that consumerism is a result of the lives that we are living. What purpose, what enjoyment do we have out of our lives in this civilization? People are stuck working day in and day out, and regardless of whether this is a capitalist system or anarchist system, work does suck and it causes a lot of stress, alienation, and isolation for the individual. As a result of work, we seek out other means to get our life back, so we buy useless things that we don't need as we become more and more isolated from our neighbors and each other the more cities are built. It is more than work of course, and I'm not just implying that work is the cause of this all, as some on here seem to think that because I say one thing has a helping hand in creating something that means that I'm saying it's the sole cause.
Civilized life, I mean, lets face it, it isn't very appealing. We are cooped up in houses away from each other, we become cogs in a machine for the sake of production, for the sake of keeping the machine going. Our whole lives really are a reflection of working to keep the system alive. I don't know, perhaps you enjoy being domesticated, perhaps you enjoy having your life mediated to you, and being apart from nature, I don't. I would rather have a world where I can go out and hunt and gather food in a way that is enjoyable and more like play than work, then have to go to Wal-mart to buy it or even a small locally owned mom and pop store. With all of the time saving technology that exists in today's society, there have only been more problems that come forth. That time saving technology also requires repairs and maintenence to be done on it.
Many have visions of some utopia society that is anarchist coming forth. We can live civilized lives and be at peace, and live in a sustainable way. All of that technology, that won't hurt us, windmills are fine, solar panels are fine, despite the fact that both require materials to be mined from the Earth, and both require the use of finite resources, no, not for the actual energy, but in order to get the energy. I don't want a world devastated by mining and I don't see that as a way of life that is sustainable. Furthermore, traditional communities are not just going to voluntarily go there to extract the resources to import to you if you do not have them, therefore violence will be needed to take those resources if you want to live that way of life.
"My point on primitivism is that it is easy to look at the world and conclude that modern society is dangerous to itself and to the environment. It is very dangerous! But its poisonous nature is not entirely accidental or incidental, or simply a side-effect of modernization. Some of it IS planned. This claim may not make sense, until you understand why."
I'm not disputing the fact that it isn't accidental, it is something that is required is what I am pointing out, and so it can't be accidental. I think it's dangerous to mix the definition of society in with civilization though and I think that's why so many people don't like primitivism is because they don't understand that there is a difference, and non-civilized societies can exist.
I'm not saying that the fall of civilization will be glorious, once again, I never have said this and I have said all throughout this discussion that I don't believe it will be and chances are people will die. However, everyone wants to act like we have a choice in the matter. I wish that we were living a sustainable lifestyle that wouldn't result in an eco-pocalypse but that isn't realistic, and we don't have a choice. Our lifestyle is killing the Earth, I think everyone is in consensus on that one, but many wish to put up illusions that we can somehow have our cake and eat it to, that we can somehow continue to abuse the Earth more and more and it's just going to survive. Sustainability isn't just an option, it isn't something that we can pretend we are doing so we can feel good about ourselves, it is a serious thing and we have to look at it and we have to look at what this civilization is doing to us and what is happening. Clearly at the very least you can't deny that global warming is going to fuck some shit up. Maybe that will be the cause of it, I don't know, maybe it will be when this system runs out of oil, that it finally ends, who knows, but we have to be realistic that we are fucked, and we need to look for the best ways to survive after the fall.
"One more thing... "How do we stop tyrants from taking power that governments are currently preventing them from seizing?"
Which governments do you mean? lol... I suppose if all governments were abolished, there would be a power vacuum and a LOT of weapons still lying around, so someone would get the idea... this is just another reason why we can't just "shut the system off." No, we need to come together and take responsibility for it, and work together to destroy all these weapons, properly dismantle our reactors, and generally do our best ensure that the transition to a peaceful and sustainable society is a smooth one."
I believe the point that the individual who put that comment was trying to make was to try and make you think about it and see that the same arguments are used for anarchy in general within civilized life. You act as if civilized way of life is the only life when we can come together and take responisbility for things, that without civilization everything is going to be chaos and death and destruction and we'll have a nuclear armageddon and warlords will take power and etc. It's a ridiculous argument to make because it assumes that non-civilized life is warlike, it's taking up Hobbs' theory which has been proved wrong.
-Angry Primitivist
Ok, you put a lot of words
Ok, you put a lot of words into my mouth and thoughts into my head there that I did not say or would not think, so I don't know where to begin. And I apologize if any confusion was caused over misuse of terms (it happens)...
but I SURE AS HELL DON'T "enjoy being domesticated," or "having my life mediated to me" and I would have thought that to be self explanatory by the fact that I am speaking out against the New World Order on a fucking Anarchist Website. If I had my life mediated to me, I wouldn't be able to seek out knowledge and discern truth for myself, and I definitely wouldn't know about the NWO.
Believe me, I once would have self-identified as a primitivist, so I can understand where you are coming from. Your assumptions that I would prefer to engage others through a set of wires are unfair... I, too, would rather have a world where I can go out and hunt and gather food in a way that is enjoyable and more like play than work. Absolutely! And I do as much as I can (enslaved as I am - for now) to live a simple lifestyle and fight the system at every level, while always striving to understand its machinations.
About my consumerism argument, you said yourself many points that are things I also have felt and would agree on, particularly that people are faced with no choice, that we are trapped and alienated from one another, and especially that our "work" is always in servitude of the very machine that controls us. And people are made to feel empty, and they try to fill their lives with stuff... But (and this seems to be my main argument with primitivism?) is that the natural tendency, or was it DESIGNED that way?
I disagree that consumerism is the result of the lives we're living. I currently believe that consumerism was imposed onto the US population, and that we were too easily trained to accept our role in it. All I am asking is that you think it through just one step further.
But to rephrase my post, succintly, I will simply pose this question:
Do primitivists believe that humankind is incapable of existing in a symbiotic relationship with the Earth?
"Do primitivists believe
"Do primitivists believe that humankind is incapable of existing in a symbiotic relationship with the Earth?"
I believe that humyns can live a sustainable lifestyle, I do not believe they can live a sustainable lifestyle in civilization and neither do other primitivists which is why we call for the death of civilization.
"but I SURE AS HELL DON'T "enjoy being domesticated," or "having my life mediated to me" and I would have thought that to be self explanatory by the fact that I am speaking out against the New World Order on a fucking Anarchist Website. If I had my life mediated to me, I wouldn't be able to seek out knowledge and discern truth for myself, and I definitely wouldn't know about the NWO."
So then we have something in common. I don't enjoy either of those things, but they are both a product of civilization. You do have your life mediated to you, as we all do, none of us are free from mediations, we are both responding on a computer after all. An end to civilization means an end to mediations and domestication, both of which are favorable. I thank you for responding to those things where others have not.
"About my consumerism argument, you said yourself many points that are things I also have felt and would agree on, particularly that people are faced with no choice, that we are trapped and alienated from one another, and especially that our "work" is always in servitude of the very machine that controls us. And people are made to feel empty, and they try to fill their lives with stuff... But (and this seems to be my main argument with primitivism?) is that the natural tendency, or was it DESIGNED that way?"
Well, you speak of natural in a different way then I speak of natural. I assume by natural you mean is that something that is going to happen no matter what in civilized life. It's tricky to respond to your question because it is both designed and supposed to be this way. They have conspired to keep things the way they are because if they didn't then this civilization would fall.
We have much in common. But
We have much in common. But remember that we are talking through this mediary, when otherwise (seperated by vast expanses of parking lots and strip malls) we would never have been likely to exchange a word. Computers are like hallucinogens... just a tool. It depends how you use it.
If computers could contribute to the end of statism, or be used as a weapon to bring down the corporate oligarchy, that might just about make up for all the poor misguided minds these machines have helped to placate, with all their escapist fantasies.
Peace,
-OISHi
Yes, computer is something
Yes, computer is something that can be used to spread anti-tech propaganda and help to bring down this system, so yeah, it can be a good thing in that sense but they still are a medium, not comparable to real human interactions and that's what we need to work for.
-This message wasn't meant as an argument, for there is nothing to argue.
AP
Hi Folks, This is the
Hi Folks,
This is the author, Dani Rubin, writing.
I recently hitch-hiked through Eastern Canada, the Great Lakes Region. It was my impression that the areas that I passed through were nearly completely Terra-formed - massively integrated into the industrial/military complex. When the shit hits the fan the destruction will be huge. Much larger than most people have imagined.
There are huge stockpiles of of materials that are incredably toxic and persistent in that region. Intentionaly and unintentionally a swift collapse will release these materials, making the Bopal disaster look like a walk in the park.
I am too active, personally, to qualify as a 'reformer.' I am after fucking big changes similar to those that you want. I just don't want the cure to kill the patient (i.e., Mother Earth) Politically, I am very fond of Anarcho-Syndicalism. Nihlism, however, is not very attractive - it's cheap closure from where I stand.
I knew that using the term 'gradualism' would open me up to criticism - but better to call a spade a spade, eh? That's the position that I have been forced to adopt given our circumstances. So I work hard at changing our culture, moving it away from mass comsumption, everyday. Even if I successfully contribute to this transformation I'll be long dead, since I'm 56. Doing anything else would be a chicken-shit and selfish response.
Also, I re-post articles from primativists and authors like Dr. Glen Barry and Derrick Jensen because they have something to add to the conversation. That's democracy. But I don't think that they've got it right. I think that they a tapping into a huge well of frustration and anger that some folks are carrying - I understand the real sources of that anger but refuse to face the world's problems using it as my basic platform and approach.
Anyway the original article had my personal email address on it. you can try to straighten me out by writing, if you feel strongly that i am completely misguided. dlrubin@telus.net
Dani Rubin
First off, let me say thank
First off, let me say thank you to Dani for wading into the debate. Oishi, sorry, but there is no conspiracy, just a confluence of mutually supporting selfish behaviors. Our anonymous friend, I will dub him/her Angry Primitive, while quick to lash out and get personal, still makes some very good points.
As Angry Primitive says, humans have surpassed the carrying capacity for our species. This is not something that can be argued against scientifically. Every day we expand our environment by destroying more of the biodiversity of life and convert it to food and space for humans. Numerous studies have shown that organisms can easily out-populate their carrying capacity by several times before a sudden and swift collapse of the ecosystem on which they thrive. No technology known to the laws of physics will change the rules of the game. Each and every species has to take in food in order to reproduce, since the population keeps growing we will have to make more and more of the world into food for us, fueling the cycle and bringing closer the collapse. The wealthier humans waste more food and take up more space and thus more bio-mass of the planet. Even if we could stop the population growth, we would have to stop the growth of wealth in order to increase the bio-mass of other organisms on our planet.
You may say, at this point, well anarchists do not subscribe to the material wealth lifestyle so we are helping to save the planet. And you are right, except we anarchists are not the ones that are in of a wake-up call. The wealthy will fight you, and the ignorant masses are selfish, as we all are, and will be easily lulled back to sleep by the wealthy.
Now, what happens after the crash? Do we all die? I am not sure, but it is important to note that some biologist actually think the area around Chernobyl has become a wildlife sanctuary do to the lack of humans. Though there are bitter disputes about this point, it is a valid scientific theory and more data is necessary before conclusions can be determined. Also, there was a suburb of St. Louis, I can't recall the name now, that had a terrible chemical spill. I drive past it every now and again. The whole town is fenced off and abandoned and has been that way for 20 years. It resembles Angkor Wat with lush vegetation and trees growing through houses.
I am not saying I want the population to crash, I do not want to see my family and friends starve and die. I want my children to grow up without the threat of extinction hanging over them. But I know that technology will not save us. People will individually continue to behave selfishly like people always have. Unfortunately, Angry Primitive and I and others like us know that it is not possible for all 6.6 billion of us to live like hunter-gatherers, which is the only 'known' method of living sustainably within the ecosystem. We need and crave an answer to this questions more that 'gradually' people will figure it out or 'technology' will save us.
I hope you're right! But if
I hope you're right!
But if there's no conspiracy of illuminati central bankers, then there must be a whole DIFFERENT conspiracy of conspiracists, travelling through time and planting evidence against the Rockefellers and the CFR in order to sell Alex Jones T-SHIRTS in the future!!!
WHICH IS SCARIER??????????
Which is more likely?
ChEErs :)
--Oishi
We all (well, maybe not
We all (well, maybe not Angry Primitivist) appreciate that the author would join in and clarify/explain. Thanks!
"At some point people
"At some point people recognize that civilization is not something external to their reality. The hegemonic grasp of the elites erodes in the face of hunger and intolerable oppression. Like the old saying goes: the boss needs us, we don’t need the boss. But we can apply that more widely: replace boss with machine, fields, work, god/s, economy, politics, or civilization. We’ve lived without all of these things and we don’t need them. They are killing us. The city and the countryside stand between us and a society that can support the next generations. Work stands between us and life. Progress stands between a healthy livable world and a suffocating one. Those who built the temples of god-kings, those who filled the granaries, those who worked in the fields, those who built roads, cut forests, those who crushed opposition, all of them hit a point when it was painfully obvious that they were putting far more into the system than they were getting in return."
To all who think
To all who think civilization is sustainable:
I would like to hear your points expressed. You do plenty of bashing but none of you are offering solutions worth a shit. Don't give me no green energy bullshit either. Fuck all this talk of science, all this talk of agriculture and everything else, I want you to explain to me how this civilization can seriously be sustainable and in doing so, a definition would be nice. If you're going to talk shit about primitivism you'd better start offering your own solutions. But you haven't, all of your solutions require hope, they require putting our hope out on science to solve our problems, putting our hope out to technology to solve our problems. Not one of you have provided a way in which this civilization can be made sustainable. In your perfect anarchist civilization are you still planning on having roads? Are you still planning on TV? Do you still want the modern day house version? Urban sprawl? Do you still want cars? You apparently want energy, so explain to me your miraculous instant fix which is going to solve everyone of our energy purposes, and I don't mean saying, "we can find a way" I mean, truly give me an example here, give me something, don't just give me this bullshit. We all agree this civilization is unsustainable but you're all wanting to put your hopes out on the fact that it can be made sustainable. Meanwhile, the Earth is being killed off while you're wanting to fuck around and act as if anarchy is going to solve all of our problems alone. Hope gets us no where, perhaps you haven't realized that by now, and god damn it, your revolution won't stop all these forms of domination and control over our lives. It's time your fantasies end and you start to explain.
Fuck Science, you criticize the theory of god yet you're just as willing to put Science in the same position and offer it the same worship that you would a god. None of you want to even address the subject of domestication, you hide and run away from it, and you do the same with technology which controls us and isolates us. None of you want to address the division of labor which your society will require. None of you want to address anything but the government and hold onto your fantasies that we can create some paradise out of civilization without pointing out how.
You still want to base our world off of the usage of non-renewable resources, this alone makes it unsustainable. Many of you are willing to say I'm wrong, but none of you are willing to do much more than that. You want to say that we need science and we need logic, and I'm not logical in my thought, but you're refusing to address the points I'm making and instead relying on bullshit arugments of "you're wrong" "you don't know", not to mention the individual who wants to go into some idea that everything is some massive conspiracy set forth. I would like answers, and I would like you to seriously offer critiques of primitivism, and I mean CRITIQUE, not just "you're wrong". Sound good? Otherwise perhaps it would be nice to not say anything at all.
Yes, I am frustrated and I am angry, our Earth is being killed off and you all want to continue along with fantasies of a sustainable civilization instead of realizing that the cuase of all this is the god damned civilization which exists. You want to think that we can go on destroying the Earth and nothing bad is going to happen, and perhaps you think that if we stop destroying it so much that it'll survive, but it won't. Our air, land, water, and food are poisoned. You want to go on with civilization because you are afraid that if we do not then people will rise to power, or people will take control of biological weapons and kill others, and in all of your arrogance you act as if this won't happen if civilization stayed and your anarchist society was created out of it. What are you willing to do to prevent it? Impose power and control over them? Cause obviously that isn't going to exist in a post-primitive society which you seem to be ready to criticize.
-Angry Primi
Well, no one else is likely
Well, no one else is likely to mention this but it is pretty relevant (I didn't read ur whole question)...
The ROCKEFELLERS think civilization is sustainable, and here's how they intend to do it: MASSIVE DEPOPULATION.
As for the division of labor, 99 % will work, thinking they are free, and 1% will sit on their asses and rule them, pretty much like what we have now (only much much cleaner).
I'd honestly rather be killed by some force of nature than whatever those assholes have in store!
:)
SOLIDARITY
-oishi
[neither corporation]