Ria Response to Bellamy, Zerzan & Steve Kirk condemning vegan primitivism

From Vegan Primitivist

-Veganism is hating power in oneself, hyper-pacifism, and that doesn’t happen in the natural world – Does compassion happen in the natural world? Does mutualism? Does symbiosis? Do those beings hate themselves for it? Is compassion not an act of power, or only killing and eating the bodies of others?

-Not enough land for vegan primitivism – How do you know how much land would be needed for wild foraging? How many seasons can an acorn harvest last? And wapato? And mongongo nut? And tubers of sedge tiger-nuts? And ground nuts? Who still holds this knowledge to make the calculation? If collapse happened overnight, would there be enough land for everyone to hunt? Why are you imposing the excuse of overpopulation on vegans only?

-Modern liberal values extending rights to animals – Modern values and rights would not long for smashing civilization. It must be challenging to distinguish consumerist veganism from primitivist veganism, we’re a rare breed.

-Utilitarianism to lower amount of suffering – Do anprims want to lower suffering in the world? I thought Anarchy Radio routinely reported on all the suffering. Why? Do animals not try to have less suffering in themselves and those around them?

-Rationally managed society – Once again, confusing consumerist veganism with primitivist veganism.

“Veganism is essential to wildness. Not only is exploiting and killing animals a humanape-constructed activity and form of authority, but it socially evolved into the leading political regime worldwide. Very often humans want to pinpoint about such questions as origins, saying that “it has always been so even prior to civilization”, and extreme rationalization has destroyed the last bits of remorse that could be left – nonetheless, if there is any initial “project” for humans, here we are, and we fail.” ~Nicolas Dupont

-The study mentioned was ‘low meat’, not ‘no meat’ – Being that alternatives to modern mainstream narratives tend to be silenced, scorned and sternly denied before considered, even when alternative ‘proof’ is discovered, is it recognized for what it is, or explained away with acceptable culturally mediated ideology, as in the points made in this podcast?

Challenges to false propagated narratives do manifest, but face uphill battles in gaining mainstream acceptance. The study: DNA analysis shows that forest gathering Neanderthals found in a cave in Spain drew their food and medicine from plants, mushrooms, pine nuts, and moss.

Weyrich, Laura S., et al. “Neanderthal Behaviour, Diet, and Disease Inferred from Ancient DNA in Dental Calculus.” Nature, International Journal of Science , vol. 544, 2017, pp. 357–61. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21674

At Spy cave, Belgium, Neanderthal diet was heavily meat based and included woolly rhinoceros and wild sheep (mouflon), characteristic of a steppe environment. In contrast, no meat was detected in the diet of Neanderthals from El Sidrón cave, Spain, and dietary components of mushrooms, pine nuts, and moss reflected forest gathering.

So here’s DNA evidence that some pre-civ humans subsisted wholly on plants, mushrooms and moss, challenging civilization’s romanticized man-the-hunter image and pro-meat bias. Why is your first response to try to disprove it?

-Cannot survive vegan outside technology / Leviathan – It’s been done, and you refuse to acknowledge it. Seasoned wild tender Finisia Medrano has told me it’s very doable to subsist vegan on the sacred hoops, even in the scarce landscapes she tends. The only solid evidence of earliest bipedal human diet was of plants. What is the earliest solid evidence of meat eating? The man-the-hunter myth is popularized, overgeneralized, hyped up. Modern minds project modern indoctrination into early human narratives. Scientific narratives are processed and molded through cultural values. For example, when modern meat eating paleoanthropologists find any evidence of hunting, they routinely deem all individuals comprising an entire group over vast areas and times as ‘hunters’. Mainstream-embraced evolutionary narratives, that most anprims were indoctrinated into, tend to be value-laden and biased.

-Anthropocentricism to maintain world view – Is conjuring up a pre-civ ideal, egalitarianism with hunting, to recreate in the present and future an act of mindset morality? How is anprim darling Paul Shepard not human-centric? And if you’re against people with predatory sexuality, I don’t know how you’d idealize him.

“The human hunter in the field is not merely a predator, because of hundreds of centuries of experience in treating the woman-prey with love, which he turns back into the hunt proper. The ecstatic consummation of this love is the killing itself. Formal consummation is eating… The prey must be eaten for ethical not nutritional value, in a kind of celebration.”

-Veganism imposes universal moral rights – Vegan primitivists do? Or man-the-hunter ideologues like Paul Shepard, encouraging all boys & men to hunt? I am vegan because my entire animal being tells me to not kill or eat animals, without being indoctrinated into it. As a child I instinctively fought to be vegan in a world of killers. It seems unlikely a child born into a world of vegans would fight to kill animals. Would I like for humans to end the killing nonhuman animals? As much as I’d like for humans to end the killing of human animals. My animal being repels from humans killing.

Shepard comes off as a psychopath in saying he saw no difference between eating a vegetable and an animal, yet, he saw hunting as deeply spiritual: “Hunting is a holy occupation, framed in rules and courtesy, informed by the beauty of the physical being and the numinous presence of the spiritual life of animals.” For Shepard, “eating animals is a way to worship them.” “(T)o be kindred… means… a sense of many connections and transformations – us into them, them into us, and them into each other from the beginning of time.” Shepard encouraged every man to hunt to recover “…the ontogenetic movement; …the value of the hunt is in a single leap forward into the heart-structure of the world, the “game” played to rules that reveal ourselves. What is important is to have hunted. It is like having babies.”

Marti Kheel wrote how sects of Deep Ecology “employ ethical discourse as a means of shielding the hunter from the actual experience of the animal he kills… The focus of the hunter is on his own interior mental state. As long as his mental attitude is said to conform to a particular ethical code, his violent behavior is thought to be legitimized. The emphasis on the instinctual (sexual) nature of hunting functions to further remove the hunters’ conduct from ethical reproach, since hunting is seen as a natural and elementary drive. The ethical discourse thus functions as a “decoy,” focusing attention not on the state of the animal who is about to be killed, but rather on the hunter. What the holy hunters see as a “reciprocal” activity is, in reality, a unidirectional morality in which the hunter formulates and follows his own moral directives… the animal is reduced to an object, a symbol against which the hunter seeks to establish his masculine selfhood and moral worth.”

Andree Collard and Joyce Contrucci in Rape of the Wild: Man’s Violence against Animals and the Earth, wrote that “the efforts of modern man to rationalize the contradictions and delusions surrounding the hunt and the hunter extend to the romanticized images he fashions of primitive man as the archetypal hunter with the hunt as the sine qua non of his existence.”

Even if you embrace the spiritualism of hunting, how can a rewilder whose ideal is based on early cultures with spiritual hunting honed through generations, communicate with the spirit of the hunted animal? This may be why many hunt in rote form: I am wild simply by hunting and eating animals. How is the intimate connection between animal persons formed, when they don’t experience other animals as persons? Their rewilding is artificial. They are a babe thinking themselves into a virile doer of civilization’s ‘rewilding’. Observing a lifetime would not bring them a step closer to their goal with their mindset. They cannot accept that ancient knowledge of ecological embeddedness has vanished, and reconstructing wild knowledge takes generations. In today’s hurting wildscape, wildness requires immense healing first, lifetimes of giving back. When your friend is hurting, you don’t use her, you offer aid. Wild is hurting, and if your animal being is open to sensing the pain and you don’t give aid, instead exploit wild even more, your relationship is based in the disconnected aloofness of disregarded pain. Despite their justifications, they flail in attempts at ecological embeddedness by hunting animals, without perceiving their harm to the habitat.

And besides, how many people use man-the-hunter mythology to justify buying pieces of tortured carcasses in stores & drive-through windows?

-No examples of indigenous subsistence – There are, but Leviathan doesn’t want to know them. Man-the-hunter bias dominating archaeology and many other modern institutions makes searches contrasting propagandized narratives a challenge.

Christopher Ryan, author of Civilized to Death: The Price of Progress: “The popularity and persistence of scientific narratives often have more to do with how well they support dominant mythologies than with their scientific veracity.”

James C. Scott: “…if you were hunter-gatherers or nomads, however numerous, spreading your biodegradable trash thinly across the landscape, you were likely to vanish entirely from the archaeological record,” Not only do hunter-gatherers leave little evidence, plant foragers leave even less, likely resulting in greatly overexaggerated claims of inherent human hunting.

Archaeobotanist Sarah Mason: “For the most part the Pleistocene, and even the earliest post-glacial, is a blank when it comes to evidence of humans eating plants. No wonder the old men’s stories, of chaps who hunt great mammals and eat their meat, still dominate our unthinking visions of hunter-gathering in that period.”

Andree Collard and Joyce Contrucci, authors of Rape of the Wild: “…denying validity or even recognition to alternative interpretations, access to alternative values and beliefs capable of freeing a society from its own self-destruction is closed.”

Archaeologist Lyn Wadley: “Many archaeologists are not interested in botanical remains.”

Anthropologist Penny Spikins on Raymond Dart’s ‘killer ape’ theory: “A tendency to see what we think ought to be there was perhaps never best illustrated…”

-Would have to migrate to equatorial climate – What are the natural human habitat limits? Is it not anthropocentric to think you have a right to live wherever you want? Why don’t you have to abide by wild’s invisible walls regulated by food opportunities and temperatures? Why not live under the sea if you want to. In space if you want to? That returning to wild habitat is not a part of anprim reveals a human supremacy that nixes return to their wildness altogether.

-Dubious health value – Wow. Still clinging to that?

According to the sciences of evolution, anatomy, and physiology humans are herbivores, designed to thrive from a plant-based diet. As put by professor of physical anthropology Katharine Milton,

There is general agreement that the ancestral line (Hominoidea) giving rise to humans was strongly herbivorous… In hominoids, features such as nutrient requirements and digestive physiology appear to be genetically conservative and probably were little affected by the hunter-gatherer phase of human existence.

Milton, Katharine. “Hunter-Gatherer Diets—a Different Perspective.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 71, no. 3, 2000, pp. 665–667, doi:10.1093/ajcn/71.3.665.

Tharrey, Marion, et al. “Patterns of Plant and Animal Protein Intake Are Strongly Associated with Cardiovascular Mortality: the Adventist Health Study-2 Cohort.” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 47, no. 5, Feb. 2018, pp. 1603–1612, doi:10.1093/ije/dyy030.

Healthy diets can be advocated based on protein sources, preferring low contributions of protein from meat and higher intakes of plant protein from nuts and seeds

Miles, Fayth L, et al. “Plasma, Urine, and Adipose Tissue Biomarkers of Dietary Intake Differ Between Vegetarian and Non-Vegetarian Diet Groups in the Adventist Health Study-2.” The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 149, no. 4, 2019, pp. 667–675, doi:10.1093/jn/nxy292.

Abete, Itziar, et al. “Association between Total, Processed, Red and White Meat Consumption and All-Cause, CVD and IHD Mortality: a Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.” British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 112, no. 5, 2014, pp. 762–775, doi:10.1017/s000711451400124x.

Bernstein, Adam M., et al. “Major Dietary Protein Sources and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women.” Circulation, vol. 122, no. 9, 2010, pp. 876–883, doi:10.1161/circulationaha.109.915165.

Kim, Hyunju, et al. “Plant‐Based Diets Are Associated With a Lower Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Disease, Cardiovascular Disease Mortality, and All‐Cause Mortality in a General Population of Middle‐Aged Adults.” Journal of the American Heart Association, vol. 8, no. 16, 2019, doi:10.1161/jaha.119.012865.

Kelemen, L. E. “Associations of Dietary Protein with Disease and Mortality in a Prospective Study of Postmenopausal Women.” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 161, no. 3, Jan. 2005, pp. 239–249, doi:10.1093/aje/kwi038.

Song, Mingyang, et al. “Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality.” JAMA Internal Medicine, vol. 176, no. 10, Jan. 2016, p. 1453, doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.4182.

Stark, Philip B., et al. “Open-Source Food: Nutrition, Toxicology, and Availability of Wild Edible Greens in the East Bay.” Plos One, vol. 14, no. 1, 2019, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202450.


If you’re interested in learning more about thriving with wild plants:

“Common garden weeds are more nutritious than kale, Berkeley researchers find.

Researchers from the University of California Berkeley have identified 52 edible weeds growing in abundance in the poorest neighborhoods of San Francisco, surrounded by busy roads and industrial zones.

At least six of them are more nutritious than kale, according to a new study.

The three low-income neighborhoods the researchers studied have been classified as “urban food deserts” — meaning they are more than a mile from the nearest shop that sells fresh produce.

Of the 52 species of wild-growing “weeds” they found, they tested six for nutrition content:







All six were more nutritious, by most accounts, than kale – arguably the most nutritious domesticated leafy greens.

The weeds boasted more dietary fiber, protein, vitamin A, calcium, iron, vitamin K, and provided more energy.

The only nutrient kale scored higher in was vitamin C, but the researchers suspect other weeds they found, such wild mustard and wild radish, might rival it in that category.

Many of the edible weeds they found have been used in folk medicine, including plantain, cat’s ear, fennel, sow thistle, wild lettuce, and wild onions.

The really exciting part about the study, is that these weeds were foraged in the middle of a drought.

“Foraged leafy greens are consumed around the globe, including in urban areas, and may play a larger role when food is scarce or expensive,” writes Philip Stark, statistics professor and founder of the Berkeley Open Source Food Project.

“Even during this low-production period, almost every address in all three study areas had several servings of several different species, suggesting that wild edible greens are a reliable source of nutrition all year round,” writes Stark.

Soil at some survey sites had elevated concentrations of lead and cadmium, but tissue tests suggest the weeds don’t take up much of these or other heavy metals.

After being rinsed, they tested at less than the dosages considered safe by the EPA, the researchers said.

Pesticides, glyphosate, and PCBs were undetectable.

How can people identify which wild greens are edible?

“Familiarity,” says Stark. “Most people have no trouble telling the difference between, say iceberg lettuce and romaine lettuce.”

He recommends people educate themselves and gradually start adding new weeds into their diets.

The report notes there are only 1.7 cups of farmed vegetables available per person per day in the United States, less than the recommended serving of two to three cups.

The researchers suggest wild food could fill in the gap and improve nutrition security.

“Wild foods might also contribute to a healthy ecosystem by building soil organic matter, retaining water and nutrients in the soil, and reducing erosion,” Stark wrote.”



Rebuttal of Paul Shepard’s “The Vegetarians” in his essay “Post-Historic Primitivism” in The Wilderness Condition: Essays on Environment and Civilization


Returning to Reality a response to Paul Shepard’s “The Vegetarians”

By M.B.

Laying out a scathing illogical introduction, Shepard wastes no time in announcing his unsubstantiated generally held biases towards people who abstain from consuming animals and their secretions. The very first vague attack on vegan diets as being a “quantity over quality” ideology is a vile underlying theme of his essay which he relies on to build credibility with the reader.

Because of the unsupported assumptions Shepard has made about the inadequacy of a vegan diet in general (“quantity over quality”) and especially in terms of “protein” and “long chain fats” these myths are best dispelled immediately. The notion that plants are an inadequate source of protein is ironically absolutely inimical to the truth. Plants being the most important primary producers on the planet not only create the energy that drives most life on Earth, but also the eight essential amino acids which primary consumers (herbivores) and all subsequent consumers obtain from them directly or indirectly and chemically rearrange to synthesize other amino acids(1,2). The concept of protein combining of plant foods is nutritional lore that is ripe for the tomb. All plant foods contain all essential amino acids albeit in varying quantities, with many having amino acid ratios considered to be “complete” sources of protein, such as soy and amaranth (3). It has been proven that diets that are adequately calorie dense are almost always adequately rich in protein (2). Interestingly, once believed to be caused by protein deficiency, recent evidence suggests that kwashiorkor is a “micronutrient deficiency” rather than a “macronutrient deficiency.” (4). Additionally, more recent research has suggested that animal protein is carcinogenic (5), and that human omnivores have higher levels of C-reactive protein which in essence is wasted protein (6,7). Your idea of “protein hunger” is another stark untrue statement that has not been proven in humans and the fact that primates eat insects and that chimpanzees for instance sometimes cannibalize each other doesn’t prove that a completely vegan diet is inadequate for humans, nor does this indicate that our evolutionary heritage has not been predominately herbivorous. Also there is evidence that feeding captive gorillas meat rich diets induces heart disease as it does for our own species(8).

Concerning fats, again the truth is oiled to fortify the bias of Mr. Shepard. Long chain fatty acids indispensable for life come in two general forms known as Arachidonic acid (from linoleic acid), the omega 6 and Eicosapentanoic (EPA) and Docohexasenoic (DHA, both of which come from alpha-linoleic acid) acids which are omega 3’s(9). They are easily synthesized by the body from the essential short chain fatty acids which in the omega 6 form is linoleic acid (LA) and the omega 3 compound is alphalinoleic acid (ALA). A cursory review of the scientific literature illuminates the capacity of the human body to synthesize all the long chain fatty acids necessary to thrive as the brain and rest of the body needs very little and stores excess as well (10). Animal flesh contains minimal omega 3s, even that of grass fed or wild animals (11). Fish contains a considerable amount of DHA and EPA but these are obtained from consuming the algae that initially produces it (12). However the oceans fisheries are near annihilated by overfishing, and their tissues concentrate methylmercury, PCBs, dioxins and other lipophilic toxins (13,14). Despite the confusion raised by people who speculate fish cannot, they do in fact feel pain (15). As such the best option may be algae derived supplements that are available for those concerned about their body’s ability to convert ALA to DHA, though for most people this is probably superfluous (10). Thus, it is not necessary and it is environmentally taxing to consume animals strictly to obtain long chain fatty acids.

To further confound the reader, the B12 issue is thrown in coupled with misinformation. Cobalamin or Vitamin B12 as it is commonly known, presents another can of worms to sort through but the tactic doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny and careful review of the evidence. Studies like the Framingham Offspring Study which have demonstrated that up to 38 per cent of omnivores reviewed had marginal B12 status, as well as the fact that B12 does not come from meat nor plants but is synthesized by prokaryotic bacteria exclusively, materializes more questions than answers (16,17). Furthermore those with impaired digestion such as the elderly and those with gastrointestinal issues are at heightened risk of B12 deficiency(18,19). The evidence we have instructs us that it is prudent for the majority of people to consider supplementing B12 as the animals reared for slaughter in particular those in CAFO operations receive. In short, Shepard’s lack of nutritional research and his reliance on the assumption that the reader will take his bias and lies at face value result in his argument rapidly disintegrating.

The American Academy of Dietetics has stated that a properly planned vegan diet is adequate for all stages of life, including pregnancy and infancy (20). Furthermore, there are many vegan athletes as well as professional vegan weightlifters who hold or have held world records, Carl Lewis being one of them. Clearly, animal foods are not “more critical for sound nutrition than plant foods.” A near vegan diet is the only diet proven to not only prevent but also reverse the number one cause of death on Earth, heart disease (21,22). The final idea Shepard espouses is one which has been reiterated so frequently that it has become a cliché: the idea of the rugged noble savage who is the splitting image of health. This is an exhausting appeal to nature as if hunter gatherers were the standard of longevity and vigor. The fixation on this nonexistent anomalous nutritional mystery is irresponsible as writing like this can have considerable influence that will not only effect the environment and the lives of animals, but people’s health. The fact is that hunter gatherers are not a standard of nutrition or wellbeing. The idea that the Masai and the Inuit had some immunity to atherosclerosis and the diseases of affluence has been totally refuted (23-26). As I have stated, knowledge of how to treat the cause of heart disease was already known by 1990 (20) as such you have no excuse in publishing the conjecture of a doctor who hasn’t definitively proven his hypothesis. The same diet proven to reverse heart disease has also been shown by both Dr. Kempner and Swank to reverse diabetes and multiple sclerosis, respectively, long before Ornish’s trial (27,28).

The egregious assertions that there is “no phylogenic felicity” and also a “reinventing of biology” for the vegan argument to stand is akin to the Politburo fat and malicious decrying the rachitic proletariat, such is the blind faith in a putrid and incredulous system. Comparative anatomy of humans and our closest herbivorous relatives anatomically, as well as with respect to dentition and physiology indicates our shared dietary heritage. The length of our digestive tract is not the only significant comparison as is done in the essay of interest, but a myriad of others such as dentition and the jaw, Stomach pH, Cholesterol metabolism, behavior, sense of taste, and other metabolic distinctions such as our inability to synthesize vitamin C as well as to detoxify retinol or preformed vitamin A, as carnivores ably do both (29,30).

The viewpoints presented concerning ethical and primarily environmental and existential aspects are similarly of a logically deficient stance. The notion that people who exclusively consume vegetables and plants/fungi are murderous and blood hungry is as ludicrous as the perverse propaganda used to attack enemies of the Nazi party. The audacity to enthusiastically describe the culture of animal murder (hunting) and then lead off his affront to vegans with such a hollow inflammatory statement demonstrates that the spiritual affinity for lifeforms described is a guise which is dropped readily when vegans are under attack. Zucchini, soybeans, and all plant and fungal life on Earth for that matter are sentient but lack nervous systems and science has not proven that they feel pain and they do not scream for their lives as animals being slaughtered. The sardonic attitude and previously stated spiritual insinuations are obviously incompatible. Animals that tangibly fight and run for their lives, vocalize in terror if they can and display systemic outward agony are certainly not equitable to the harvesting of soybeans and zuchhini. Obviously, this point is a red herring which is something Shephard accuses feminists of employing, which is besides the point- even if this were true, more plants perish to feed animals than if humans just ate the plants directly.

Not only are the majority of vegetables and plant foods consumed by the general population, but those who choose to eat plant foods alone are not only sparing the livelihood of farmed animals but also millions of small rodents and insects which die in the harvesting of crops raised for the feed of farmed animals, who require far more nutrition than human beings. Thus, the damage of “harvesting casualties” is far more pronounced when considering the crops destined for animal consumption.

The amount of feed per animal varies depending upon the definition (31) (For actual beef that 90 per cent of “First World” omnivores consume the ratio is about twenty pounds of feed/grain to one pound of red meat), but no matter the copious caveats and hair splitting, all energy in our world for our intents and purposes is derived from the Sun. Plants are the most direct source of this energy, and every time this energy is transferred to another trophic level such as herbivores and so on, energy is lost via the metabolism, growth, and death of these organisms (32). This is elementary science.

Logical fallacies are a hallmark of this essay, as after fishing emotional sympathy from the foolish with a red herring, Shepard next employs an appeal to obscurity. This delusional notion that the dietary pattern which requires the least amount of land to feed the most people having the most deleterious effect upon “The Fourth [and] Fifth World” is frustratingly unfounded. It’s rather clear what happens to quality of life for those in these neatly compartmentalized “worlds” when in fact all “worlds” are tied together and so are our collective problems.

The insincere contrite nod at true vegetarians (vegans) and the idea that a vegan diet is only suitable for people who are malnourished, an ersatz substitute for the “traditional” diet which causes heart disease, diabetes, and colon cancer in the “First World.”This is hardly the case. As proven above, plant food is wasted in excessive quantities to feed animals while impoverished humans starve, especially in the Third World (33). Not only are “calories” wasted on these animals, but as I have elucidated, “protein” as well. Furthermore, these animals are oftentimes supplemented with B12 which I have discussed.

So how is life for those poor people who had to “gulp” soya in lieu of eating animal corpse, the “preferred” cuisine? Well, there’s no way to ascertain that, but it should be readily apparent that if that land was being used to rear farmed animals it wouldn’t be for this destitute “Third World” refugee described but rather for the affluent meat consumer. Not to mention the fact that this diet is not a “better than nothing” approach which I have demonstrated.

But let me continue to shovel out the lies that have muddied the pure waters of truth. The same reasoning that I have used above applies to the “Fourth [and] Fifth Worlds” and to reply to the query posited about their wellbeing I simply ask one to look at the world, even as it was in the 1990’s when “The Vegetarians” was written. Increased demand upon burgeoning middle classes in “Second World” countries has resulted in more acreage being devoted to raising animals and it often is like a raging cancer at the fringes of pristine habitat such as the Amazon rainforest, the home of many indigenous peoples and where untold numbers of species are extinguished, some perhaps never discovered from habitat destruction but also globally from the effect of climate change which animal agriculture plays a huge role in. This is what happens to the “fourth” and “Fifth World” when the world follows the egregiously dangerous advice noted in the essay of focus- the most diverse and unique life forms are destroyed directly, climate change from animal agriculture influences species extinction worldwide, and because of rainforest encroachment, tribal peoples such as the Guarani and Yanomamo are in jeopardy of losing their culture and livelihood (34,35). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that animal agriculture produces more greenhouse gases than all those emitted by worldwide transportation (36), both leading drivers of climate change and it’s corresponding environmental havoc.

So in essence, Shepard is engaging himself in a tour de force of hypocrisy as everything he is claiming vegans are guilty of are failings of those who continue to demand the flesh and secretions of animals. The only ecologically shortsighted ideology here is the one that is currently exercised on a massive scale on our fragile interconnected world, Shepard’s aloofness to facts and logic devastate any possibility his argument might convince anyone who does any veracious research. He errantly champions the dietary pattern which causes the most comprehensive ubiquitous malaise and decimation in the world. Not only in terms of environmental degradation and climate change, but also habitat destruction, ocean dead zones, abuse of antibiotics and the resulting consequences, widespread preventable chronic illnesses, and even increased incidence of violence in communities with abattoirs and increased cancer in communities near certain animal agribusiness operations (37,38). Thus, aligning the vegan diet with a “quantitative mindedness” as I have explained is totally inaccurate. The low fat, oil free, whole food vegan diet is the most complete diet as it does not detract from health the way that animal flesh does. It intrinsically ameliorates our world by virtue of being of a holistic mindset that acknowledges that everything is related in the vast web of life, and by endeavoring to be conscientious of this, to evolve mindfully, and let truth reign instead of wallow in darkness and ignorance, as Shepard’s essay advocates.


Fowden L. (1980) Amino Acids: Production by Plants and the Requirements of Man. In: Blaxter K. (eds) Food Chains and Human Nutrition. Springer, Dordrecht. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-7336-0_6

McDougal J (2002),Plant Foods Have a Complete Amino Acid Composition,

Circulation, https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000018905.97677.1F, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.CIR.0000018905.97677.1F


Heikens GT, Manary M. 75 years of Kwashiorkor in Africa. Malawi Med J. 2009;21(3):96–98. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3717488/

Campbell TC. Cancer Prevention and Treatment by Wholistic Nutrition. J Nat Sci. 2017 Oct;3(10):e448. PubMed PMID: 29057328; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5646698.

Smidowicz A, Regula J. Effect of nutritional status and dietary patterns on human serum C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 concentrations. Adv Nutr. 2015 Nov 13;6(6):738-47. doi: 10.3945/an.115.009415. PubMed PMID: 26567198; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4642421.

Sutliffe JT, Wilson LD, de Heer HD, Foster RL, Carnot MJ., C-reactive protein response to a vegan lifestyle intervention, Complement Ther Med. 2015 Feb;23(1):32-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2014.11.001. Epub 2014 Dec 3.

Cheryl Lyn Dybas, Ilya Raskin, Out of Africa: A Tale of Gorillas, Heart Disease… and a Swamp Plant, BioScience, Volume 57, Issue 5, May 2007, Pages 392–397, https://doi.org/10.1641/B570503

Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University, https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/other-nutrients/essential-fatty-acids

Domenichiello AF, Kitson AP, Bazinet RP, Is docosahexaenoic acid synthesis from α-linolenic acid sufficient to supply the adult brain?, Prog Lipid Res. 2015 Jul;59:54-66. doi: 10.1016/j.plipres.2015.04.002. Epub 2015 Apr 25

Berkeley Health, Berekely University of California, https://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food/nutrition/article/grass-fed-beef-omega-3s

Doughman SD, Krupanidhi S, Sanjeevi CB. Omega-3 fatty acids for nutrition and medicine: considering microalgae oil as a vegetarian source of EPA and DHA, Curr Diabetes Rev. 2007 Aug;3(3):198-203.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture, http://www.fao.org/3/i2727e/i2727e00.htm

Streit B. Bioaccumulation of Contaminants in Fish, EXS. 1998;86:353-87.

Sneddon LU, Pain perception in fish: indicators and endpoints, ILAR J. 2009;50(4):338-42.

Tucker KL, Rich S, Rosenberg I, Jacques P, Dallal G, Wilson PW, Selhub J, Plasma vitamin B-12 concentrations relate to intake source in the Framingham Offspring study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Feb;71(2):514-22.

Fang H, Kang J, Zhang D. Microbial production of vitamin B12: a review and future perspectives. Microb Cell Fact. 2017 Jan 30;16(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12934-017-0631-y. PubMed PMID: 28137297; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5282855.

Allen LH1., Causes of vitamin B12 and folate deficiency., Food Nutr Bull. 2008 Jun;29(2 Suppl):S20-34; discussion S35-7.

Madanchi M, Fagagnini S, Fournier N, Biedermann L, Zeitz J, Battegay E, Zimmerli L, Vavricka SR, Rogler G, Scharl M; Swiss IBD Cohort Study Group. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018 Jul 12;24(8):1768-1779. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izy054.

Melina V, Craig W, Levin S., Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets., J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016 Dec;116(12):1970-1980. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025.

Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Armstrong WT, Ports TA, McLanahan SM, Kirkeeide RL, Brand RJ, Gould KL. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The Lifestyle Heart Trial. Lancet. 1990 Jul 21;336(8708):129-33

Esselstyn CB Jr, Gendy G, Doyle J, Golubic M, Roizen MF. A way to reverse CAD? J Fam Pract. 2014 Jul;63(7):356-364b.

Mann GV, Spoerry A, Gary M, Jarashow D, Atherosclerosis in the Masai, American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 95, Issue 1, January 1972, Pages 26-37, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournal.aje.a121365

Mbalilaki JA, Masesa Z, Strømme SB, Høstmark AT, Sundquist J, Wändell P, Rosengren A, Hellenius ML, Daily energy expenditure and cardiovascular risk in Masai, rural and urban Bantu Tanzanians. Br J Sports Med. 2010 Feb;44(2):121-6. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2007.044966. Epub 2008 Jun 3.

Fodor JG, Helis E, Yazdekhasti N, Vohnout B, “Fishing” for the origins of the “Eskimos and heart disease” story: facts or wishful thinking? Can J Cardiol. 2014 Aug;30(8):864-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2014.04.007. Epub 2014 Apr 13.

Bjerregaard P1, Young TK, Hegele RA, Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit–what is the evidence? Atherosclerosis. 2003 Feb;166(2):351-7

McDougall J, Walter Kempner MD Founder of the Rice Diet, https://www.drmcdougall.com/2013/12/31/walter-kempner-md-founder-of-the-rice-diet/

Metropulos, Megan MS RDN, Ware, Megan RDN, Does the Swank Diet help with multiple sclerosis?, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318665.php

Mills, Milton MD, The Comparative Anatomy of Eating, retrieved from https://www.adaptt.org/documents/Mills%20The%20Comparative%20Anatomy%20of%20Eating1.pdf

Drouin G, Godin JR, Pagé B. The genetics of vitamin C loss in vertebrates. Curr Genomics. 2011 Aug;12(5):371-8. doi: 10.2174/138920211796429736. PubMed PMID: 22294879; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3145266.

USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, New Technologies for Ag Extension Project, https://articles.extension.org/pages/35850/on-average-how-many-pounds-of-corn-make-one-pound-of-beef-assuming-an-all-grain-diet-from-background

Department of Education Open Textbook Pilot Project, Transfer of Energy Between Trophic Levels, https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/46%3A_Ecosystems/46.2%3A_Energy_Flow_through_Ecosystems/46.2C%3A_Transfer_of_Energy_between_Trophic_Levels

Oppenlander, Richard DDS, Animal Agriculture, Hunger, and How to Feed a Growing Population: Part One of Two, https://www.forksoverknives.com/animal-agriculture-hunger-and-how-to-feed-a-growing-global-population-part-one-of-two/#gs.xjs3wg

Survival International, https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/brazilian

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Global Forest Atlas, Cattle Ranching in the Amazon Region, https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Livestock’s Long Shadow,http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

Fitzgerald, A. J., Kalof, L., & Dietz, T. (2009). Slaughterhouses and Increased Crime Rates: An Empirical Analysis of the Spillover From “The Jungle” Into the Surrounding Community. Organization & Environment, 22(2), 158–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026609338164

Avery, Sarah, N.C Residents Living Near Large Hog Farms Have Elevated Disease, Death Risk, https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news-listing/nc-residents-living-near-large-hog-farms-have-elevated-disease-death-risks

There are 109 Comments

This is the roughest thing I’ve ever read. Ria May cherry pick even more data to weave her narrative than Zerzan. There are so many holes in this piece.

There’s multiple people who went through the piece in the last thread about Bellamy. You can look for yourself.

“Compassion in the animal world does not equal veganism. Even carnivorous animals can exhibit compassion. This weird binary thinking of good and bad is wild. Veganism is a human created diet. Sure there are herbivores but it’s not the same thing.

She jumps around the globe mentioning various nuts and tubers to try to show there’s an abundance of protein sources for people’s. Yet all of these places are spread throughout the world and it’s not like there is that much of an abundance of any of these things. If you’ve ever tried to harvest acorns you’ll also note how many of them get eaten by other animals before you even get to them.

Not only that she claims that evidence is being hidden about historical people’s living vegan diets. Then she lists examples of people living with varying diets largely based around place. Which doesn’t really prove anything beyond diets being largely subject to the resources around you. Which Bellamy was getting at when he talked about protein sources in North America being lacking.

She rambles on about nutritious weeds growing in industrial areas but doesn’t recognize the bioaccumulation of hazardous materials. We are living in a world polluted by industrial development.

I am not a meat eater and have spent most of my life probably being vegan. I’ve foraged wild edibles in various parts of North America to eat. From my experience it’d be incredibly hard for every person on this earth to live an anprim vegan lifestyle. Especially in the wake of mass industrial society. Not only that I think it’s delusional to base your veganism on a myth of it being the natural way for humans to live. The reality is a varied diet makes the most sense. I believe people need to find compassionate ways to live with non humans forms of life regardless of diet.”

ok, so it's not bulletproof, but it can dodge bullets like in the matrix. you try writing like that. XD

Honestly the way most primitivist authors write it seems to be a talent.

"She rambles on about nutritious weeds growing in industrial areas but doesn’t recognize the bioaccumulation of hazardous materials. We are living in a world polluted by industrial development."

But not the meat!? Cattle are consuming this toxic pollution. Especially in farmland areas that's filled with the worse, glysophate, arsenic, heavy metals, hormones, and more hormones...

But that's just a thin part of the problem behind your argument. The bigger scope being that the whole settler system of food productions has been mostly doing the same since the start: expansive monocultures, crops and cattle consisting in significant parts of imported plants/animals that do not interact well with the natural floral around, but more fundamentally the disregard towards this native flora in favor of more mass-scale land exploitation.

I got no decisive opinion on those people still hunting deer as sustainable source of food. In some contexts this might be much less harmful to the environment (as well as personally more autonomous) than relying solely on this mass-scale food production system.

I still got an issue with Ria's avoiding the much, much more problematic issue of a car-based suburban sprawl development as the biggest cause of harm to ecosystems, as it generates an acceleration of devastation and pollution unrivaled since maybe the spread of the coal industry, if not worse. "Civilization" develops now as net systems of infrastructural dependency, nets that are extremely harmful to the direct environment, while also being driven/fed by a mass-consumer economy, even with all its nice offshoots of eco-consumerism, better waste management (lol), and other greenwashing.

No I also agree with you on the meat too! I don’t think anyone should be hunting any animal living in the industrial wastes of our society. I’m not encouraging people to do that as Ria is with the plants. I am fortunate enough to live in a place less disturbed by environmental degradation.

I also don’t support industrial mass agriculture. You are preaching to the choir on that one too. I’m not encouraging everyone to live a vegan diet though knowing that everyone’s landscape is different. I think you’ll find many vegan primitivist are actually consumerist vegans as I’ve heard Ria imply. I doubt very few don’t buy into the industrial agricultural system.

I know hunters out near where I live who hunt because it’s less terrible than supporting the animal agriculture. They also for the most part live very far from markets. Very few of these hunters I’ve met have been trophy hunters who didn’t respect and put a lot of time appreciating the animals. They primarily hunt deer for the most part because as mentioned it’s very abundant. A few of these hunters are at the forefront of conservation efforts because they realize the importance of habitat for these animals.

I agree that car based sprawl development is a huge problem. Where I live much of it is forested but where development is occurring large scale habitat loss has begun to be noted. The introduction of just simple paved roads changes an entire ecosystem.

Maybe it didn’t seem worth posting a long thread of different comments. I trust that people can look in the other read if they want to see where the last conversation went!

After reading through Ria’s piece and all the critique in this discussion so far. It sounds to me like she made well-founded refutations of some unfounded made up claims. And some people here are shooting bb’s that aren’t beginning to poke holes. When people have that kind of reflexive reaction, it oft seems to be the case that some deep indoctrination or false belief justifications sense they are under attack, so the person lashes out with anything they can come up with. This discussion would be a case for psychological study.

Ria’s article gets at the core of who we are as a species and how we’ve evolved into committing ecocide. It points to the most sound explanation I’ve ever heard. It hurts, but I’m not going to deny and lash back at her. I’m a glutton for truth.

it probably feels that way due to it being complied pretty much the same day as the oak podcast was put out. maybe taking some time to actually put together a more thought out essay would have helped make for a stronger argument overall.

Even if I still can't agree with her theory on Controlled Fire as, like, the source of all oppression, but here she's doing a good job breaking apart the lies and straw men thrown at radical vegan primitivism.

A wall of sources doesn’t mean they’re all good. The sources go through a variety of different diets. Many of which work for weight loss but not as an overall great diet for health. The rice diet for example is one of the ones listed. She also lists sources who believe cancer can be cured through food entirely. I’ve known vegans with cancer and it did not cure them. Chemotherapy was what did the job.

She has a bunch of sources that say things like plants can give you b12 and protein. While true the amount of each requires some sort of abundance. I’d argue the authors are expecting people for the most part to be living a civilized life with industrial ag having access to a variety of plants.

To me primitivism is largely a place based way of life. That means how you live is largely dependent on what’s available. The reality is less foraged goods are available because of civilizations encroachment. Agriculture and other forms of industry have largely displaced our ability to find food sources directly. For the average person it is much easier to go to the market than to find a clean large source of foraged food. I do invite everyone to harvest acorns as it is a lot of fun. You will learn very quickly though that you are competing with lots of other animals for the source!

(and i'm not referring to men vs. women identity politics)

even apologist vegans have the wall and/or cater to those who have the wall.

there is no real reason to not be vegan, now or in the future. 'because I want to' doesn't cut it any more than someone wanting to kill humans 'because they want to'

it's quite atrocious how most humans treat animals, and the world is bearing the consequences of it, climate change and so much more.

Do you believe that everyone right now can go primitivist vegan? As in all foraged foods and not being dependent on some form of agriculture for food? I’m not gonna argue with you that people can do it under the right conditions. I just don’t think there is any way of life I’m certain every human being can or should lives. Maybe that’s the anarchist in me.

Also is it alright when another animal kills another for sustenance? What will you have us do to the carnivores of the world? How far does your ethic go? If we too are animals.

for everyone with or without hunting is impossible.

Humans have been eating outside their biology, throwing ecology everywhere out of whack. We’re literally eating the planet to death

The thing I've never really understood is why primitivist veganism makes such a hard distinction between animal and non-animal life. Particularly when so much of life exists only through some pretty complex webs of symbiosis, it seems like such a weirdly arbitrary line to draw. And you can't just say it's a capacity to feel pain or anything like that, since even if you accept the premise of projecting human experience onto inhuman organisms, there are plenty of animals that have nervous systems that are more dissimilar to ours than e.g. many mycorrhizomal networks, so "animal" doesn't make for much of a meaningful distinction.

I agree with your point, and would also bring up the issue of land access if one even wanted to live a vegan rewilding lifeway not dependent on industrial agriculture or infrastructure. its fine if the answer is: this is ideal, but only a few of us can do it, but it seems she is arguing instead: this possible and is what everyone should be doing. maybe Im missing something?

I also dont understand this reductivist line of thinking that looks further to the past for the most pure form of human freedom. the cause of our suffering is: capitalism, no, government, no, agriculture, no, civilization, no, hunting, no, fire. perhaps being humans at all is the true cause of our suffering?

I do feel Ria brings up many good points of contention, and gets to some of the hard questions, so thanks to her for it.

Veganism is very instinctive. Humans have to be enculturated into killing and eating animals. We are hard wired to be disgusted by harming animals, not plants or other life forms. That is our basic nature.

Whenever people come up with that silly term I always demand some empirical observation of this so-called wiring. If anything human compassion was a unique extra animal development that came *drum roll* from the campfire. Disgust is a human cultural trait. Beyond that it's just mammalian eoxytocin.

Thanks Ria for pointing out all the ways anarcho -primitivism has been using civilization indoctrination to support ‘primitivism’. The reason they draw so many men, in my opinion, is machismo of killing animals and basing it in modern indigenous cultures. I hope your book not only rejects their authoritarianism, but presents a counter-narrative that includes wild ‘truths’ like the ones you lay out in this article. It’s so refreshing to finally hear an anarcho-primitivism perspective that resonates, that doesn’t turn my stomach with patriarchy. I don’t think Bellamy considers himself anprim, but I hope JZ and KT both feel the sting and take heed. It’s just too bad that authoritarianism has to be fought and overthrown because ego stands in the way of having an open mind. I’m not anprim myself, but interested enough that I’d like to read more about it or listen to it without getting that feeling you get from listening to Trump.

It sounds like you just want an excuse to use identity politics to cherry pick a narrative of primitivism you want to be true. It’s even more fucked up to paint anything as a wild truth. Nature is expansive and diverse. It’s part of how life persists and things survive.

Not really humans were and are a lot of things. I don’t know any anprim author who doesn’t acknowledge that gathering is a huge part of pre civ life. Just because it doesn’t fit your clean narrative of life pre civ doesn’t mean you can erase it from history.

Let’s be real Zerzan isn’t out there hunting. It sounds like Bellamy is more than likely mostly forest gardening.

Honestly I must concede that I too held some of those same thoughts, and with this analysis can see so clearly how they were mainstream culture brainwash.Thanks Bellamy for making me see how stupid I was. Very enlightening. My mind is freer, and I’m going to have a harder time justifying not going vegan. I might even start eating weeds.

Who the hell does Ria think she is challenging the boy's club? She should be in the cave-kitchen solemnly preparing and cooking the roadkill spiritually hunted and gathered by Bellamy and the boys within their pan-secessionist enclave.

it seems you've unfamiliar with the whole Controlled Fire genealogy meme, allow me to summarize:
Controlled Fire=>hunting/domination=>Patriarchy=>Civilization

the only thing i mock is that i would not give fire such a central role, and having it lead inexorably to that path
i think humans were both able to hunt/dominate and patriarchy without fire, while others figured out how to use fire and staved away domination and patriarchy. fire does seem important in many civs, but not the most important in many, as would be stone working or other techs. i do think the path that she suggests is plausible and must have happened in many places.


The fuckin Bonobos, the species that bucks the trend of male dominance hierarchy when it comes to greater comparative examples of apes. Compassion and all that other good stuff is clearly an excessive development that comes out of ape meat eating. Ria and Layla have taken this to ascetic absurdity as relates to anarchy.

You're doing the same thing anprims do that Ria pointed out. You're overgeneralizing examples and tying them to the entire group, and to the species. Very few bonobos hunt, it's very tied to conditions. And you're also looking at modern bonobos under stress from humans.

This is a perfect example of an illogical point based on an obvious bias.

I'm simply pointing out one of many examples of omnivore ape diets including the ones that are shown to be the least dominance structured. There's no reason to suspect that they did not go after small antelope in the past and if you throw in insects that's basically meat protein. Of course hunting or non hunting is tied to conditions, everything is. There's simply no evidence that the current Bonobo diet is any kind of aberration.

My view on meat is neutral and descriptive, YOURS is not.

Some of the critiques against Ria's response in this thread have been hashed out in the Oak podcast post a few doors down. But I didn't hear JZ mention a thing about this on his Anarchy Radio show last night. And it Bellamy isn't even responding as an anon. Are they running away in fear, or in shame, or did she shoot them dead? If they concede, the honorable thing to do would be to at least acknowledge her. This is not a pretty look for either of them.

I'm not vegan, but it sure looks like she quickly & effectively laid them to waste. KO in the first round.

She just put this out. Bellamy isn’t one to shy away from defending his ideas. Although he is often very slow to respond through the web. We can’t expect everyone to put forth an immediate response to everything.

attention economy much? all of this has unfolded in less than 3 days. that this is a serious post (if it is) shouldn't but still somehow amazes me. 2020 here we go...

"After being rinsed, they tested at less than the dosages considered safe by the EPA, the researchers said.

Pesticides, glyphosate, and PCBs were undetectable."

I'm not saying that's perfect or guaranteed, but no one is mentioning it.

Often times the exposure risk is found more so in the soil. This is how it is for the most part with things like lead and pcbs. Which is to say it’s a significant risk if you’re digging around in it foraging.

Every plant bioaccumulates differently. The risk is not really worth the reward.

Nuts and some fruits are the safest bet for urban foraging. Roots tend to collect the worst of it. With the greens you have to worry about pesticides, herbicides and dog urine. Wash everything y’all! I think foraging is an important human activity but be safe.

Unmaintained backstreets got by far the best greens, as the soil is also the richest and healthiest you can find around, as opposed to the ultra-toxic soil of parks, abandoned lots (likely contaminated), etc. The patches of backstreet soil collects compost naturally from surrounding trash and water drains, while the usually rough pavement of backstreets helps filtering waters. Plus, since most people disdain those areas they're unlikely to get depleted overnight by waves of urban foragers. Of course here I'm not referring to those sanitized yuppie hellholes.

Some very good nutritious greens usually grow in these backstreets, such as thistles, burdock, plantains, wild lettuces can be found where nobody cares, even wild berries if you're lucky. Those are protein and mineral rich, while unlike nuts they're available year-long. Obviously these won't be the "cleanest" edibles and might contain a level of toxins, but that's the best you might get in the city without having your spot on some yuppie community garden (that may still be contaminated anyways). Wild greens grow without need to be maintained, but the soil may also be great for planting good greens around.

It’s probably the most important skill any human today can have. I know a man living wild, almost a hermit, in northern Wisconsin, and he’s vegan. He moved away from civilization because he couldn’t stand human cruelty

Oogle ecology right here...

“The patches of backstreet soil collects compost naturally from surrounding trash and water drains, while the usually rough pavement of backstreets helps filtering waters. ”

Eating thistle is a very tedious task due to the sharpness of needles. Wild lettuce has a toxic latex compound which people relate as similar to opium. Ingest responsibly because it can make you feel bad.

I don't know what is that "wild lettuce" you're referring to... It's actually another of those blurry names designating a bunch of different plants (like the semantic problem with "wild carrots"). You don't mean the asclepias? It does have an acidic, toxic milk that is only bad once the plant flowers (as usual with plants, if you know about this stuff). The young buds are exquisitive when boiled in salty water or fried with soy sauce.

Some thistles don't have spikes, but even those that do can be reduced easily down the blender (they make splendid herbal juice), or just cut off with a knife. No complication here. And boy it is worth the effort! One of my favorites, the sow thistle, among others, has a distinct salty-sweet-sour taste that is very hard to describe.

Hopefully the typical criticisms here wiil be addressed in Ria’s upcoming book. The discussion on how to forage plants is more exciting and practical than the battle of the abstract. It’s time to get out there to start learning to live wild, and slaughtering animals would be disastrous for ecosystems. I do believe that humans being so heartless is at the root of many problems.

Did Vegan Primitivist read beyond the abstract of the Nature article they cited about Neanderthals and DNA? It seems like they have not read past the abstract (1st link they cited). I'm not sure if Vegan Primitivist is aware that humans and neanderthals aren't the same species. It seems like they're unaware of that because they appear to be using humans and neanderthals as if they're interchangeable.

Vegan Primitivist claims the Nature article proves that some pre-civ humans subsisted entirely on plants, but the article says no such thing. The article makes it clear that, pre-civ & after humans, consumed meat to varying degrees. It's not that hard to miss. The article says further that the 5 El Sidrón Cave neanderthals they studied weren't only consuming plant based food, but also consumed meat, albeit in a limited capacity. Anyways, coming to a conclusion that some pre-civ humans only consuming plants based off a study of 5 neanderthals is idiotic.

Why even cite stuff if you're not gonna read the very thing you're citing? Is it one of these things where you cite a bunch of shit to make it appear you're more knowledgeable about something than you?

The difference is subspecies not species. Ironically the concept of race makes sense for the different sapien subspecies. Other then that I agree with the rest of what you say.

"In contrast, no meat was detected in the diet of Neanderthals from El Sidrón cave, Spain, and dietary components of mushrooms, pine nuts, and moss reflected forest gathering."

cited from the article

What's tricky is that biased scientists are constantly trying to skew the narrative, so they tend to say things like, "One can assume they were also eating meat." And sometimes they just leave out that clarifying phrase and take liberty to write the narrative into the study.

definitely shield those vegan eyes from the subreddit and instagram ‘nature is metal.’ we aren’t the only species that kill for fun. and even herbivores eat insects and other species from time to time.

veganism comes from the seventh day adventists, and was created by someone they consider their prophet. she wanted them to creep into science to convert the world. and that’s what they’ve done. it’s a starvation diet so the mind is more easily influenced toward their religion.

there are over 15 nutrients you cannot get on a vegan diet. the absorption rates from synthetic analogues and precursors are abysmal. it is is why 84% of vegans drop out, and why 92% are deficient on b12 alone (which only comes from an animal source).

as someone that was a strict vegetarian and vegan for 8 years, what brought the whole house of cards down was not only declining health, but all of the lies. stop lying for your ideology. not every farm runs the same way. stop paying people to do fucked up things for your propaganda. there are so many court cases of outright STAGED abuse on the part of activists. this is disgusting. industrial mono-cropping kills far more species down to the bacteriological level (topsoil depletion). it’s just that those creatures don’t have cute faces for propaganda purposes. quit lying about how you don’t cheat on your diet. one alaskan salmon fisher that sells to most of the high profile vegans isn’t ready to come forward (and why, when they’re a trusted source of income). plus, plants are not great for everyone. many have to be shipped from around the world (the 16 biggest cargo ships account for MOST of the world’s pollution), many contain oxylates, and anti-nutrients. many fruits and vegetables are entirely man made creations, lacking nutrients and bred for sugar content.

everything dies. everything we eat comes from death. i just chose to acknowledge this. life and death are processes happening at the same time. this is natural. not a ‘bad thing.’

your diet is based on an arbitrary morality, nothing else. it has nothing to do with health, or health of the planet. it was created as a religious movement first and foremost.

i don’t know what the seventh day adventists have to do with anarchy.

I love Ria's unpretentious writing style. Her writing is extremely well sourced in academia without coming off as academic. It's just like having a natural conversation.

Why every time there is an article written by or commented on by Ria there is a brigade of low value vegantroll comments, usually seeking to inflame some battle of the sexes and tying it into veganism?

I have been vegan for over 15 years. For most of this time my veganism has been contingent, based on my context. Starting from my own body (I haven't had a problem with friends incorporating animal derived things into their diet due to health problems), it has worked for me health and well being wise. From there, socially, it has been a glue, for better or for worse, but again context! And from there I live in urban areas, and thus, to me, the key point to all of this as I see it: I live in civilization -- civilization exists. (I won't get into how it exists in our heads here, but that would be a good part of this discussion as well). If in my lifetime civilization collapses and I am able to build a closer relationship with the earth unfettered by interruption, from being clawed back by civilization, I will likely stop being vegan. What I have always been against, is slaughterhouses, battery animals wading in their own shit, primates having their bodies torn apart while they are strapped down alive and conscious, human domination over other living things (I would include domestication and most animal husbandry I have seen in this domination). I don't see being part of a complex web of life that includes eating animals as any of that litany of horrors. And why is the focus always on hunting? Is it because it fits this "man the hunter" criticism the vegano-primtivists are trying to lodge? Is, for example, gathering mussels predation? A source of patriarchy etc? (I said MUSSELS not gathering MUSCLES! jk). The places I feel connection to, the indigenous people there did, since time immemorial, and DO NOW eat outside of what the civilized call the Plant Kingdom.

As a green/anti-civ anarchist vegan I have been privy to the post-vegan arguments for a long time now and I agree with most of them. Is there space for such things? Is there more than one way to be a vegan, more than one way to be a primitivist? Is there more than one way to be an anarchist? Sometimes it feels like people think there is only one way to do or be X...and then you know they are usually barking up a tree of ideology. Going back in the archeological record to find the pure non-predator humans or pre-humans begins to seem like a strange obsession to me, building on JZ and KT's work (and of course the shoulders those two have already stood on). It seems to me like an effort to shoehorn veganism into primitivist ideology and convince others of this Truth. Why? because you can point to one truth among many looking back into history and it makes sense with your understanding of the world?

Without civilization I hope (big hope!) to shed the ideology of veganism as much as I would hope that I can relate to all beings around me, human and non, with less mediation.

I could say more but have to run now.

Your thinking sounds more plant based than vegan.

My veganism is very primal. Always has been. I resisted the indoctrination, always saw human harming other animals as viscerally disgusting and cruel.

Explain the difference between plant based and veganism? Also please define primal.

Rias primal veganism means she eats at least one primal strip a day from whole foods

I think it's a leap to say that feeling something viscerally makes it primal, but perhaps if you expanded on your meaning of primal in this context that would be helpful. Either way, I am not going to try to argue against how you want to define your experience. But similar to a religious experience, it's hard to make a case for it transferring to others.

I am not sure what you mean by my thinking sounds more plant based than vegan. If you are calling me a vegan-for-health-only vegan that is fine, though not entirely accurate. I am not going to enter into the tired animal rights scene posturing of who cares more about The Animals, who is doing more for The Animals. You can call me whatever you want, just don't call me late for lunch.....har har (wait is eating in the middle of the day and calling it a name civilized? shame on me!). Civilization and its culture are the problem, I think we would both agree? I appreciate more anti-civ voices, but I disagree with the project of trying to locate the original sin of humanity. It's one of the problems I have with primitivism (or rebranded: 'primal anarchy') in general, that of the fall from eden story.

All that said, if part of your practice is foraging I think that is great and I value that 100% more than the consumerist vegan nightmare of lab-grown gmo yeast substrate soy-hemoglobin and stem-cell hamburgers that is unfolding presently. Similarly I have more respect for my friends' practice of eating roadkill and trying to do it in a respectful way than those that only want to talk to me about vegan restaurants.

i love this post, @loiterhard.

the only thing more annoying than preachy, fundamentalist vegans insistent on teaching the world about original sin and why their science is so much better are the boring, screechy anti-vegan splainers that follow them around waiting to pop out of the bushes to tell the world just how wrong the vegans are because: well actually b12 anImAL nUtRiEntS & proTEiNs!!!

soon i will consume loiterhard's brain to absorb their powers. this will generate over two decades of our combined vegan destructive energies that i will use to end civ and these tedious, basicaly religious arguments.

feel my mussels.

It seems some are just trying to find a way to reject the idea of vegan primitivism, misunderstanding based on intentional lack of experience and/or culturally conditioned closed minds. For example, falsely refuting the citation on the DNA evidence of plant, mushroom and moss eating Neanderthals, when the study states that DNA analysis of 2 Neanderthals showed NO MEAT, not low meat. "DNA samples from layers of calculus from 2 individuals from El Sidrón cave in Spain (around 48,000 years old) had mushrooms, pine nuts and moss — the kind of menu you’d have in dense forest — and no detectable meat."

You can write well all you want, but if your writing is grounded in untruths, your style doesn't mount to much.

Let's face it, any self-proclaimed vegan who is not bothered by humans killing animals is more of a vegan apologist than a vegan.

Scientists looked at the layers of hardened dental plaque on the surface of the teeth, known as calculus. This mineralized muck contains the DNA of food…

… Neanderthal samples from one individual taken from Spy cave in Belgium (around 36,000 years old) and two individuals from El Sidrón cave in Spain (around 48,000 years old).

The hominins ate very differently, depending on their region: The calculus from the Neanderthal in the Belgian cave was full of meat such as woolly rhinoceros and wild sheep, which were available on the wide-open grasses of the steppe. The diet in Spain, on the other hand, had plenty of mushrooms, pine nuts and moss — the kind of menu you’d have in dense forest — and no detectable meat.

Sounds like the Belgian Neanderthal forgot his instinctual ways. Lol

Interesting question. What happened between the time Neanderthals were in Spain to the time they were in Belgium. The shift into a predatory ethos is covered both by Layla AbdelRahim and in my book to be published this month EcoPatriarchy: The Origins & Nature of Hunting.

Where will it be sold?

The resistance here is a sign that you’re striking a nerve. If you were idolized or ignored that would signal your ideas lack significance. Our species doesn’t need to be lulled, or offered false feel good stories, we need a scolding that removes our shield. You’re spot on.

Can’t wait to read your book.

Here’s a false feel good story.... the future is vegan primitive. No animals will ever die again and suffering will become non existent.

There is nothing more meaningless to me than this conversation. Most things are open to Christian fellowship, including anarchy, but veganism is about as religious as it gets. The whole argument is mostly a waste of time and I find a real struggle in it relating to anything to do with any form of lived anarchy. Veganism within civ is a joke...just read Hogg By Sam Delany because as he will tell ya, "there ain't nothing in this world that I can do that don't bring someone closer to hurt." This goes for the packaging in the grocery store to the tofu to the vegetables. It honestly takes only two peels of the onion layer to realize that veganism(if it means harm reduction or abstaining from hurting animals) is not a real thing. Full stop, it does not exist. It isn't possible, and it is speciesist and the highest form of antrhopomorphism and human exceptionalism. Vegans see themselves as better than other creatures and that they can remove themselves from the food web and from committing "harm." Sure, factory farms and industry suck, but that isn't a vegan problem, it is an industrial society/technology problem. Ria, i don't mean to be a jerk, but the difference between you and a preacher on Sunday Morning television is non-existent in my view. In a discussion or debate with any reasonable open minded thinker you will get crushed because you are holding religious views. I'm all for irrationality, but veganism is irrationality framed as rationality. Look, i get it, you like animals, they are cute, but to put animals over plants or anything else is a personal preference and not a moral obligation. I for one, would choose snails over humans, ice plant over cows, and a variety of other irrational preferences based on my random and chosen experiences in life. UGH

Also, the way the comments play out here is just like the group DXE. It is probably the most embarassing activist group we have in the world right now and they do the same thing. They hold up leaders(ria...lol, and layla) and then the comments section is full of trite responses like "wow your writing style is so amazing" "i agree" etc with no clear original thought outside the narrow confines of the original writer. For fucks sake, anarcho-primtivisim is embarassing, adding vegan on top makes about the most absurd and hilariously laughable position on anews. When transhumanists are looking more coherent and stronger in argument than you....then you are in trouble. That's it.

For some sort of a sustainable agricultural civilization, but bringing the practice into some sort of a primitivism practice doesn't make any sense, sure people have done that, but thinking it can be generalized for everyone is just ridiculous. We would be take greens away from the grazing animals.

I would like to think that by avoiding eating certain things I could reduce suffering of the world, but I just don't buy it, and to me veganism is just a way to feel morally in the right. There was a vegan who I knew who liked to play PS4 and buy the newest graphics cards as they came out, how silly is that?

see what kinds of absurd, internally contradictory, unconvincing, demeaning, and moralistic arguments ensue when humans are nearly completely removed from the responsibility of gathering their own food? when it comes to diet, unless or until all you motherfuckers stop getting the majority of your caloric intake from a grocery store all you're doing is speculating with dueling virtue signaling.

i've been vegetarian with minimal dairy (my intake of dairy is at least 75% goat to avoid both factory farming and the impracticalities of trying to digest cow milk) for over 35 years. it was never a public moral decision, but one of personal preference; i have never hoped or pretended that my preference, if made by more people, would contribute to the definitive destruction of capitalism and the state, and i only bring it up when eating at other people's homes. dietary choice might make it to the level of a bolo under the right circumstances, but i doubt it. not eating or directly harming non-human animals is a choice i've made, and i'm satisfied with it. in some post-apocalyptic scenario, it's possible that i might need to augment plant foods with critter foods, but i'll cross that bridge before it's burned.

i say this with impatience but also with love: you all need to shut the fuck up about the best, most anarchist, balanced with the environment, in line with our digestive systems, diet. yes, ALL of you: vegetarians, vegans, freegans, gleeful carnivores, faux hunters, pseudo-rewilders...

Physiologically, humans are herbivorous beings. We do not have claws, and we perspire through pores— in contrast with carnivores, which perspire through the tongue—and our small incisors are not sharp like those of carnivorous animals. What’s more, we have flat molars for chewing and grinding and our intestines are twelve times length than the total of our body, similar to other herbivores, the longitude of whose intestines fluctuates between ten and twelve times the body length. If we compare this with the intestines of carnivores, the extension of whose intestines is only three times the length of the body—which permits the rapid processing of decomposing meat through the digestive system—and the presence of strong stomach acids that help to digest meat, acids which are twenty times more potent that the acids present in the stomachs of humans and herbivores, then we see that there are no physiological reasons to suppose that humans need to eat meat. The reasons for our carnivorism are ideological. And they tend to justify human supremacy over the animal world.

Michael Klaper asserts that humans are not carnivores, either by anatomy or nature. In one of his books on the vegan diet, he shows that human beings cannot effectively eat raw meat with pleasure—in the case that we would do that—and he contrasts the pleasure of eating a raw apple, watermelon or salad with the carnivorous act, which generally requires seasoning and cooking in order to render it as far as possible from its real nature: dead flesh and nerves. In this sense, the carnivorous diet is a kind of necrophagy, which has been socially imposed, and which derives from anthropophagous practice. Both diets are nothing more than acts of symbolic ritual. Cannibalism served as a rite of distinction between tribal identity and the identity of others while carnivorism was a ceremony necessary to distance humans from animals. In effect, through carnivorism, an anthropocentric vision that ideologically guarantees the “superiority” of humans over animals and morally justifies human control over nature has been perpetuated. In both cases what is eaten is objectified. And in both cases there are symbols and reification.

Prehistoric hunting tribes expanded their territory looking for animals to hunt. They chiselled and polished stones as weapons of defense and attack. They designed stalking, territorial control and assault tactics. This was the base of the development of the logic of instrumental aggression that gave rise to combat and hoarding. But it wasn’t a homogeneous process. The Indians of the North American plains, for example, respected the buffalo— which was sacred in their cultures—and they did not mutilate it on a massive scale, nor did they domesticate it. In carnivorous civilizations, however, this first expansive movement still persists. It is a fact that hunting is one of the cornerstones over which the foundations of carnivorous civilization were raised. The murderous irrationality of civilization operates as a parallel with human irrationality. In effect, we are the only species of animals that, being herbivorous, prefer to nourish ourselves with dead creatures. This is total madness.

You're right we aren't carnivores. We started eating mean in large quantities when we harnessed fire. Humans love eating meat when it's cooked. This is our own unique adaptation, and allows us to consume foods that our anatomy otherwise would not permit. The same is true of grains, many roots, as well as greens that cannot be eaten until the anti-nutrients are cooked out of them. While science can look at most other animals and determine what their appropriate diet is based on observed physiology, the same cannot be done with humans, because we evolved with with the use of fire as a form of external digestion. This is true to the extent that the very thing that makes us human and gives us the capacity to sit here and have these pointless debates - our absurdly large brain size - is a product of our relationship with fire. The anatomy-dictates-diet argument is simply a fallacy when it comes to homo sapiens. All of the legitimate science backs this up. It is certainly true that we share MORE in common, anatomically and therefore nutritionally, with other primates, which indicates that we are certainly more adapted to a fruits-and-shoots kind of diet, which is a huge argument for forest gardens, permaculture, and a return to lifeways based on indigenous ecological knowledge, but to say that this is the one and only true way for humans to live, at the exclusion of all else, is delusional. If we hadn't started cooking formerly inaccessible foods with fire and unlocking their nutritional value, we literally would not have the brain capacity to have this dialogue.

It's totally untrue, 19:20, as many kinds of meat have been also pickled, dried or just eaten raw. Some meats like deer, moose and tuna are delicious when eaten raw and don't have anti-nutrients. Porcupine is also to be eaten raw, as it looses taste and nutrients when cooked.

I can't defend the meat used on the mass consumer markets as this is terrible quality usually that in itself is a good argument to become vegan.


the question is why did humans start to eat the dead flesh of other beings in the first place? to grow their brain capacity? is that what "all of the legitimate science" tells you? the point of the above is not trying to convince anyone of "the one and only true way for humans to live, at the exclusion of all else" but is showing that human carnism evolved as part of the project of leviathan, an ideology used to justify human supremacy over the animal world. did you miss that part?

Nope, didn't miss it. Leviathan came way, way later. Humans had enjoyed many a bbq for thousands of years before event the first neolithic settlements were established. And no, humans didn't "start to eat meat to grown their brain capacity." Humans started eating meat and then their brain capacity increased. You know, through that funny process called evolution. Which, by the way, is descriptive, not prescriptive. Evolution is not something that a species chooses; it is something that happens to a species by way of environmental conditions and chance.

"the question is why did humans start to eat the dead flesh of other beings in the first place?"

Okay, go live in the wild somewhere in the global north where cold winters last for several months and come back telling us about the dozens of edible plants you've foraged or grown during that time. It's obvious that humans became omnivorous through the worst climate conditions like the last Ice Age, little ice ages, as well as droughts. There are edible berries and a few other edible plants in the coldest regions, but they are rare and native peoples used to stockpiles on them, beyond than just collecting them on a daily basis. And yes, "controlled fire" was used aplenty for doing tasty, long-lasting candies out of these berries and fruits. Not just for cooking meat.

I feel there's many assertions done in here that got a total lack of nuance.

“What are the natural human habitat limits? Is it not anthropocentric to think you have a right to live wherever you want? Why don’t you have to abide by wild’s invisible walls regulated by food opportunities and temperatures? Why not live under the sea if you want to. In space if you want to? That returning to wild habitat is not a part of anprim reveals a human supremacy that nixes return to their wildness altogether.”

This is where Ria starts to go off the deep end. If anything may be labeled anthropocentric, it is the notion that archaic humans could have or should have “chosen” not to leave equatorial climates. Competition for resources will drive any organism to expand into new territory. This expansion is curtailed only when the organism reaches the limits of its viable habitat range. Ranges differ from species to species, and prior to a few new technological advancements and physical adaptations,, the ecological range for Homo Sapiens was limited mainly to very specific habitats in equatorial Africa. Humans remained in those niche habitats not because we chose to, but because no other alternative existed. We were contained by natural forces.

Once fire was domesticated, expansion became a forgone conclusion. It wasn’t a matter of if humans began migrating, but when. Biology dictates this. If a species has the capacity to move into new areas and maintain a breeding population there, it will do so. Ecosystems have carrying capacities that allow for a certain number of individuals from a given species, and no more. Every species, however, has encoded within it the biological imperative to multiply. Faced with the invisible wall that habitat carrying capacity represents, then the only way this imperative can be fulfilled is through expansion. Period.

The argument, therefore, that humans “ought” to stay put, is tantamount to saying that humans ought to make a conscious choice to ignore our biological imperative. This, ironically, is about as anthropocentric as it gets. If Ria were being intellectually honest, she would say that evolution made a mistake, and write off humanity in its entirety. If one sets about insisting that humans shouldn’t have migrated, there is no practical difference between this and saying that humans should not have become humans. In which case, the argument should not be against what WE have done, and are doing, but against what NATURE has done, and continues to do. But then there would be no infidels to blame, and nobody would have reason to pretend they are the valiant force for light in the darkness.

Its a fancy word to disguize a genetic determinist view on reality. Like " white people aren't meant to live in hot sunny latitudes because they get skin cancer, which is totally þrue, but you try to say that in genetic terms, soooo, biological imperative,,,,

Yes, unique white individualists can stand at bars smoking e-cigarettes in the tropics and not get skin cancer.

Imagine you are a person. Imagine you know nothing of agriculture, and rely on what nature produces for 100% of your nutrition. Imagine you survey the landbase surrounding you, and realize it no longer produces enough food to feed you. Imagine you roam into into surrounding territory only to find it occupied by other (probably very territorial) humans, and with that land already being stretched to its limit. Imagine this process continues until you eventually arrive at the edges of a desert. Do you cross it? Should you stay put because it's "anthropocentric" to "think you have a right to live where you want?" I use the term biological imperative not as a "disguised form of genetic determinism," but as a basic descriptor of a fact which should be self-evident. When faced with starvation, people are going to move. No prescriptive ideology or moral code is going to prevent starving people from searching for new food sources. If this means crossing deserts, learning how to survive in colder climates, learning to eat new things that weren't traditionally human foods, it will be done. Sorry I brought basic biology 101 lingo into the conversation. Let's pretend I never mentioned "biological imperative," and instead said "animals will search for food when hungry, and in order to keep surviving and provide for offspring, they are often forced to keep moving." This is why Ria's position is anthropocentric, when you boil it down and get past the surface arguments. She pretends to hold a position that we are wild beings and on the same level as other creatures, only to turn around and hold us to standards that nobody would think of holding to any other species. We are to be animal, apparently, whilst simultaneously expected to behave as if we were not.

Yes, maybe you know nothing when you are born, and you live off vegetables. When you grow up you realise you were part of a nomadic group's babyboom era dùe to favourable climate conditions, and now your group has to travel further to gather enough to feed the clan. During your travels you have observed that the plants you eat have flowers which grow into the seed pods you consume, and one day whilst sitting under a tree by the burbling brook (god it was nice before industrialisation ) you notice a small green shoot comes out of the ground and pull it out and notice it came out of a seed you usually eat, so you put a handful of seeds on the moist sand and cover them and wait and watch ( no kiddo, it takes longer than that duh ) . You get bored and catch up with the clan and forget about your experiment in instant bean shoots. Latter that spring your clan returns to the burbling brook and you notice that a whols bunch of the seeds you "planted" have grown into edible plants. You jump up and down, grunt and shriek to get attention, use simple demonstration to the members of the clan about your "experiment", and you all start planting seeds and clearing areas to make room for more. You volunteer to stay behind and watch the seeds while the rest of the clan travel on. Later that year, they return and find you have made a small leafy shack and accumulated piles of seed to last your clan a whole year. No more nomadic existence, the whole clan builds shacks and sit around thinking about how to not be bored. You come up with rubbing two sticks together to make fire. BRILLIANT. You are made chief, not in any hierarchical manner, more as a gesture of grateful appreciation. But you start to feel "sad". Sure, safety and security is nice, but you pine for the adventure of freedom and wandering within nature. The girl you've been hanging out with gives birth to a baby girl, and this dispells your boredom and sadness, and you are grateful for the safety the small village your ideas created offers to Sprout, your little daughter. You have no more fear of the horrors of bear and lion attack carrying off the screaming children never to be seen again. Maybe life will be more enjoyable, creating entertaining plays in the theatre salon you are designing, where the clever individualists in your tribe gather and dream up wonderful creations to make life more fun in the humungous creative nothing.

"We were contained by natural forces."

and we still are, the modern capitalist consumer illusion of variety is nothing but an illusion, in some ways our HG ancestors had immensely more freedom of choice than we do today. I'm more interested in learning about how specific decisions impact us rather than talking more about prescriptive diets and how those diets realate to anti-civilization.

Naaaaah. Most people in developed countries including you, most likely, are living in cybernetic traps. We live inside artificial systems of production. How do you go around in urban areas? Is that a bus you're taking or aren't you driving a car... or even brave/conscious enough to ride a bike? What about the water you drink... you take it straight from a river? Even the air people breathe on a daily basis is processed by air conditioning or polluted by cars and other consumer shit. Of course we're not like people in some space station where the absolute totality of everything is artificial, but to say that we're still surrounded by nature is being way fucking blind.

even if it's rearranged into a cybernetic trap or a car, humans are nature, and they create all the bullshit that we find so limiting and annoying, i'm not saying that things are still the same i'm saying that we're still constrained by nature, just because you can get on a plane and fly to africa doesn't mean that you aren't constrained by natural forces, to think we've somehow escaped the planet already to me is very blind. We're still guided by the biological forces in our bodies even if were confused by the face that we're living in a world that we weren't meant to live in. Why do you think everyone is so easily manipulated by consumer society? It's because there are certain cravings and parts of ourselves that we cannot control very easily. I find the "human" vs. "nature" binary to be one of the most obnoxious and limiting binaries that green anarchists continue to believe in.

Look... I start to feel like I'm arguing with a dog, so I'm afraid you might lose my attention soon!

Tho just before that, let's admit that the very damn fact a condition is arranged makes it artificial, therefore non-natural. Natural implies systems and beings that can exist without human intervention. It ain't more complicated than that. A forest is natural when it doesn't require human controls for thriving as an ecosystem, and old-growth forests all do that. They are self-sustained systems, even tho they depend on the resources of the larger global ecosystem (air, light, soil, water and warmth).

Afaik there is still no system or infrastructure we create that can do that (even if we're going in that direction, through AI and systems replicating biological processes, where the Machine will eventually become able to sustain by itself, and go beyond its existence as a support systems of the Leviathan... to become a new nature).

you have showed me the way! I am no longer confused about what nature is and isn't, thank you, thank you

"Natural implies systems and beings that can exist without human intervention."

so i guess human birth is not natural, even when it happens in the "wild". for that matter, based on your statement, humans per se are not natural. sure makes things easier, eh?

No human births are in the vast majority not natural. Not just the roughly 25% of cesarians that clearly are artificial, but also all the birthing assistance. It's all man-made.

Adding to that... all the stiff cultural processes that make people mate, copulate and impregnate. But but but... let's not forget contraception, and also a women's choice to abort or not abort. All artificial, yes.

So beyond, perhaps, some discreet genetic predispositions at dating one or another type of person, as well as menstruation-ovulation process in females, or being attracted by one or another smell, there ain't much natural in procreation.

Careful with that timestamp stalking, too.

Where there is only natural food and natural people! Down with this bio dome and all these meat eating carnivores!

In essence Ria is basically all but a prescriptive anti-natalist when it comes to humans as complex anatomical fire controlling meat eating animals. She has all the problems of Zerzan(origin problem fetishism) but worse.

I'm all about postulating from problems and not finding a final solution. From this I focus on REIFIED humans and the problems that come from mythology, positive prescriptive values that lack skepticism and parsimony along with individuation and affinity. Human excess in that context is fine with me controlled combustion included.

Yeah, it took me a while to wade through all the rhetoric and figure out what her essential message is. What I want to know is whether not she's aware of it. It seems to me it shouldn't take long in traveling down that road to realize "oh shit, this problem was unavoidable, and has no solution." This doesn't mean one shouldn't choose to be vegan, if so inclined, but what's the end-game? What exactly is veganism being held up as? An honest take would be to say "hey look, wild humans have a capacity for savageness, but we happen to find ourselves in a position in this current era to choose not to be savages." Ok, fine. Be what you want to be. But you can't be against the savageness that comes with the wild human animal, and simultaneously be FOR rewilding and primitivism. This is an untenable position and it strikes me as very odd that she hasn't seen it, in spite of obviously spending a great deal of time analyzing the topic. Or perhaps she has seen it, and cannot come to terms with it on some level? Cognitive dissonance perhaps? I like your take on it. I postulate from problems all day long, but rarely find any solutions beyond those which boil down to personal preference.

Maybe it's that classic problem with working backwards from conclusions? Closed loops of reasoning don't need to account for all the complexity, they're strong that way but ultimately not very satisfying imo.

i always find it interesting when primitivists rely so heavily on science. with the same inability to be critical thinkers when the "science" supports their ideology, as every other ideologue.

people (in all areas) seem to point to the "authority" on some particular issue as evidence of their unequivocal righteousness, while someone else points to another "authority" that supports their opposing viewpoint. science often seems like an ongoing exercise in disproving previously proven "theories". coffee is really good for your body. coffee is horrible for your body. there is "science" to support both of those (perhaps slightly exagerated) claims. get off your high horses and fucking do what your experience tells you works. sometimes that means trying something new. get to know your body your mind, your being; and what makes the most sense for you.

it's all bullshit, and it's bad for ya.

One can be inclined towards primitivism and use science as one of many tools in developing their own unique critical self theory, without becoming dogmatic or relying too heavily on any so-called "authorities." I personally dislike science more than I like it, and would have no problem if every last bit of post-enlightenment consciousness disappeared from the earth, but as it stands, the world as we currently know it was built largely within the framework of post-enlightenment consciousness. Throwing science out entirely would tend to be maladaptive in my view, at least in the context of certain goals. If one has no issue going along with the mainstream herd narrative and has no designs at any kind of autonomy, individualism or self sufficiency, perhaps awareness of scientific theory isn't needed. I would say it is beneficial, however, for anyone wishing to break their indoctrination and cultivate some degree of anarchic independence. The key is to not get caught up in the hard materialist worldview in the process, which, to your point, can be tricky for someone who, through through their Western upbringing, has been thoroughly indoctrinated into thinking the scientific worldview is the only game in town. My initial forays into primitivism were much that way, but I've been systematically dismantling that sticky kind of consciousness over the last several years in favor of an animistic worldview, much along the same vein as Bellamy's recent essay in Backwoods 2. Does this mean I can never quote any scientific literature again? Or that I should be lumped into the same category as the religious vegan primitivists, just because I dared to speak for a minute in biological terms? I'm not sure who exactly you're post was directed at, but unless you have direct insight into someone's complete position, you may well be on your way down the road toward erecting a strawman. Also, some "scientific" knowledge is so self-evident that one need look to no authority in order be aware of it. This is especially true of the biological science, which we have first-hand access to through lived experience. Using accepted scientific terms to describe such experiences does not mean one is relying on authorities for the knowledge; they may be only borrowing their terms in order to put a concise label on what is actually a very obvious observation.

i was referring specifically to ria, but i could say the same for jz or kt or layla. or really any ideologue.

i distinguish between science of curiosity and (human powered) exploration vs Science of authority and control. quoting supposedly authoritative science studies or what have you, is fine for an academic debate, or any other scenario where you simply want to prove yourself "right". i personally am not interested in being "right", i am interested in finding ever more liberating ways to navigate this hellhole and retain some semblance of self-awareness, compassion and joy in life.

I believe when she was dismissed by JZ for not “backing up” her thinking, she intentionally went overboard.

But I hear her book incorporates many lenses and approaches.

Eggs and bugs are not vegan but seem an obvious source of wild food with limited hunting skill necessary.

The proper diet discussion reeks of the privilege of the 1st world - of those who have access to plenty thus afford to take a moralist perspective.

Creatures kill to eat - plants, animals (to use an essentialist division), what you choose to kill is up to you and your skills and needs and tastes.

There are even examples of fungi that kill and eat nematodes. The killing and eating of other creatures occurs throughout the natural world. Sure you can choose to live a vegan lifestyle as a human but not everyone or everything is afforded that right.

Is it wrong when any other form of life kills another for survival?

The preferred diet of the modern anarcho-pundit is low hanging fruit.

Add new comment