Does art represent superior aspirations or a problematic denial of nature?

[Crucified Spartacus]

That is one of many obvious problems with primitivism. The philosophy is utterly naive and pointless.

You're like 17, right? You have such strong opinions about things i doubt you have spent any significant time trying to understand. My advice would be to not be so quick to pass judgement just to reassure yourself how right you think you are. I mean seriously, i haven't even given an answer to scourge's question yet and your remarks indicate you have already mentally blocked accepting any possible answer i would give by claiming pirmitivism is "pointless." Maybe i'm off base with these comments, but then again maybe not.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

My question for the primitivists is this: since there are a finite number of human beings that can be supported by a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (probably well under 100 million), who gets to decide which 6.4 billion or so people have to die to make that lifestyle possible for the chosen few?

first of all, although this may seem like an unimportant point, i don't consider myself a primitivist. Although i am associated with what is called anarcho-primitivism in certain concrete ways, i do not believe in classifying complex thoughts and actions into ideologies ala any "ism."

With that said, there are various approaches to dealing with population issues in regards to returning to more natural ways of living outside techno-society. For example, there is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Another example is a transition from garden agriculture to foraging. Another example is industrial sabotage. There are various ways, some involving force, others not, which could be utilized to reduce population to more natural, harmonious levels. I have my inclinations which to a certian extent combines various elements of these strategic approaches.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Dude, it's because our society is so damn organized that we are actually able to set aside wildlife reserves. Do you think six billion people all living out in the woods are going to live sustainably and preserve the harmony of nature? Hell no.

Of course, if you want to argue that overpopulation is a result of civilization, it's probably true, but I think as long as humans are smarter than other animals they're going to find a way to dominate their ecosystem. Unless you are able to genetically engineer retarded humans, it seems more reasonable to trust in a developed, educated society to live sustainably than to trust primitive humans, who are not going to understand the importance of such a concept.



So... you're saying it's self-evident that there is no artistic impulse in humanity today? I must not be following. Please explain why so many people are making art. And if you're going to write it off to 'cultural indoctrination' or something, then please explan how the culture of art even bothered to exist in the first place.



I don't even remember what the problem is actually. Is the problem simply that we're not living in the wilderness anymore? Because you haven't yet convinced me that my civilized life is any worse. As I pointed out, it's safer, I have more freedom, more things to do and think about, and I'm not constantly struggling to stay fed.



Yup. I live in Richmond, after all. They come up to me outside the 7-11 all the time babbling incoherently and asking for change. Quite a philosophical bunch, those hobos.



A big part of what makes us human is that we can find ways to get ahead in the ecosystem. The human drive to create and invent is what made our dominance possible.

The main question that comes out of this, it seems, is whether it is worthwhile for humans to have that creativity, or whether they should just be another animal. If you prefer the former, then it seems inevitable that humans will create an imbalance in nature.

But then that assumes that it is wrong to have an imbalance in nature. For one thing, what's so special about having a perfectly structured ecosystem if it doesn't progress to more advanced stages? What's the point of evolution?

For another thing, the ecosystem is going to die out one day anyway. We've already had several mass extinction events via meteors and volcanoes. (Of course, human development also constitutes a mass extinction event.) A gamma ray burst from outer space could nuke all life from the earth one day, and much more efficiently than our big, bad nuclear weapons. Ultimately, the Sun is going to die out, and then there's no chance of life at all. So what does it all come to?

I prefer to trust in the creativity of humanity, and see where it takes us. It seems like a waste of evolutionary ability not to. And in the end, humanity might be our only chance of preserving life on earth beyond all the cosmic events that would otherwise extinguish it. So why not give civilization a chance?

You are right. 6 billion people are not compatible with wilderness living. Hence, i refer you to my response to scourge about population issues.

Primitive humans not understanding the concept? Although not all primitive peoples lived sustainably with nature, many did and if you were more well read you would understand that many could articulate their ideas quite eloquently. Even if not eloquent by civilized standards, the thoughts and ideas are there.

No, some people create art today, but most don't.

Safety, freedom, things to do and avoiding hunger are all anthropocentric standards that indicate a desire to control in a civilized context. All those things can be probelmatized. For example, you are safe from being eaten by a grizzly bear in civ but you are not safe from being sent to war by the state anytime they feel like drafting you for war, stripping you of your freedom and sending you to very likely be killed for something you may not believe in. That's just one example, but i'm sure you can see where i would take further examples.

Asking for change and making what you judge to be an incoherent bunch doesn't preclude philosophical inclinations. If they were so inclined, they probably wouldn't waste their time talking to people like you who seem to have their noses in the air. Remember, many philosophers in ancient times lived lives of simplicity or homelesness, for example, Diogenes.

The value of an intact ecosystem without "advancing" to civ is the sense of being one has in nature. As many indigenous people, like Sitting Bull pointed out, the difference between natural peoples and civilized peoples is the difference between being and having/gaining. Simply being can be a very fulfilling way of life and many who were in nature rejected leaving it, for example, sitting bull's people the lakota who preferred the forager way of life over the sedentary civilized drudge.

The point of evolution is to survive, reproduce and try to experience joy while living in nature. Or at least that is what every other species does as well as many foraging peoples.

"Big bad nuclear weapons." You are such an ass.

Civilization has had it's chance for 10,000 years last time i checked. It's a failed experiment in control and domination, the continuation of which will probably kill us and millions of others species off before any cosmic event occurs that i don't think we should be so arrogant as to try and control.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

A quick point of readability: could you please start dividing up your quotes and put your responses to each under the corresponding quote, so I don't have to hunt through giant wads of text? 'Twould be much appreciated. That said, back to the endless arguing...

You are right. 6 billion people are not compatible with wilderness living. Hence, i refer you to my response to scourge about population issues.

Well, before we go about killing off 98% of the world's population, let's first try and justify hunter-gatherer life over civilized life. You seem to be dancing around my pro-civilization arguments instead of actually countering them. More on this later, however.

Primitive humans not understanding the concept? Although not all primitive peoples lived sustainably with nature, many did and if you were more well read you would understand that many could articulate their ideas quite eloquently. Even if not eloquent by civilized standards, the thoughts and ideas are there.

Okay... I'm not sure what you want to do at this point - start pulling out charts of statistics comparing sustainability among primitive people versus that of civilized peoples, or what. All you're doing here is expressing your unquestioning optimism in the good intentions of primitive peoples.

No, some people create art today, but most don't.

Was this an argument against the existence of a creative impulse in humans? I'm not sure. Obviously the majority of people in the world are too simple-minded to bother with making creative contributions to society. That still leaves a significant fraction of others who do, which is better than the 0% of art and science which exists among non-humans.

Safety, freedom, things to do and avoiding hunger are all anthropocentric standards that indicate a desire to control in a civilized context.

Are you saying that if I were a 'true man of nature' that I wouldn't care about being safe and fed? Amazing logic there.

All those things can be probelmatized. For example, you are safe from being eaten by a grizzly bear in civ but you are not safe from being sent to war by the state anytime they feel like drafting you for war, stripping you of your freedom and sending you to very likely be killed for something you may not believe in. That's just one example, but i'm sure you can see where i would take further examples.

So I'm safer in the woods, huh? Quite honestly, the possibility of me being drafted is pretty trivial compared to the possibility of starving or being preyed upon in the wild. You're going to have to do better than that, especially considering the very high success rate with which developed countries take care of their citizens. Not to mention that the average lifespan in a developed country is several decades longer on average than that of most primitive people, thanks to modern medicine and nutrition.

Asking for change and making what you judge to be an incoherent bunch doesn't preclude philosophical inclinations. If they were so inclined, they probably wouldn't waste their time talking to people like you who seem to have their noses in the air. Remember, many philosophers in ancient times lived lives of simplicity or homelesness, for example, Diogenes.

I'm sorry, using Diogenes as a representative of the homeless population is just laughable. I don't even know why we're talking about homeless people, though, so I don't have much to say on this topic.

The value of an intact ecosystem without "advancing" to civ is the sense of being one has in nature. As many indigenous people, like Sitting Bull pointed out, the difference between natural peoples and civilized peoples is the difference between being and having/gaining. Simply being can be a very fulfilling way of life and many who were in nature rejected leaving it, for example, sitting bull's people the lakota who preferred the forager way of life over the sedentary civilized drudge.

Oh, hey, an actual pro-primitivism argument for me to respond to. So, living a primitive life gives us a sense of being that is otherwise unattainable. First off, civilized Buddhists would disagree with you. Second, you're once again idealising the 'joy' of primitive life. Education, comfort, and freedom to pursue personal goals are all pretty fulfilling if you ask me. And the fact that you consider civilized life to be "sedentary drudge" but foraging in the woods all day not to be is again laughable. If you're really so sick of your boring city life, then go live on a commune for a few years and see if that solves all your problems. You haven't given me any indication that you're speaking from actual experience instead of just uninformed idealism.

The point of evolution is to survive, reproduce and try to experience joy while living in nature. Or at least that is what every other species does as well as many foraging peoples.

"Big bad nuclear weapons." You are such an ass.

Civilization has had it's chance for 10,000 years last time i checked. It's a failed experiment in control and domination, the continuation of which will probably kill us and millions of others species off before any cosmic event occurs that i don't think we should be so arrogant as to try and control.

Since the alternative to civilization seems to be throwing away all our scientific progress and wandering around in the woods being 'at one with nature' until the planet dies out, I'm not too worried about the imbalance in nature that civilization has created. Since scientific progress has given us the chance to outlive our planet and our solar system, civilized humanity could end up being the savior of all life one day. That doesn't sound like much of a failed experiment to me. Rather, I would say that a stagnant, unprogressive ecosystem with no way of saving itself from cosmic destruction is far more of a failed experiment.

Your prejudice against exploration and progress is quite amazing to me, really. You talk about the appreciation one could get by 'simply existing', yet you cannot appreciate all of the achievements in science, philosophy, and art which has come from stepping outside our simplistic animal roles. You think that philosophical conversations, like the one we're having, are one of the many horrible things which has come from our not living like all the other animals. You're against all of our aspirations to understand the world around us. You think we should live sheltered in ignorance of all that mystery and intricacy. We should be content just to live, unconcerned with how short, insignificant, and meaningless our lives would be in the grand scheme of things.

The very beauty of being human is that we can learn and understand so much about the world around us. We are the only form of life we know of which is capable of such remarkable feats. There is, of course, a risk to all the power in that knowledge, but it's a risk I'm willing to accept, just as you're willing to accept the risk of being hunted in the wild. I would rather celebrate our explorations, and see how far they take us, than just give up and accept a kill-and-be-killed fate in the cycle of nature.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

A quick point of readability: could you please start dividing up your quotes and put your responses to each under the corresponding quote, so I don't have to hunt through giant wads of text? 'Twould be much appreciated. That said, back to the endless arguing...



Well, before we go about killing off 98% of the world's population, let's first try and justify hunter-gatherer life over civilized life. You seem to be dancing around my pro-civilization arguments instead of actually countering them. More on this later, however.



Okay... I'm not sure what you want to do at this point - start pulling out charts of statistics comparing sustainability among primitive people versus that of civilized peoples, or what. All you're doing here is expressing your unquestioning optimism in the good intentions of primitive peoples.



Was this an argument against the existence of a creative impulse in humans? I'm not sure. Obviously the majority of people in the world are too simple-minded to bother with making creative contributions to society. That still leaves a significant fraction of others who do, which is better than the 0% of art and science which exists among non-humans.



Are you saying that if I were a 'true man of nature' that I wouldn't care about being safe and fed? Amazing logic there.



So I'm safer in the woods, huh? Quite honestly, the possibility of me being drafted is pretty trivial compared to the possibility of starving or being preyed upon in the wild. You're going to have to do better than that, especially considering the very high success rate with which developed countries take care of their citizens. Not to mention that the average lifespan in a developed country is several decades longer on average than that of most primitive people, thanks to modern medicine and nutrition.



I'm sorry, using Diogenes as a representative of the homeless population is just laughable. I don't even know why we're talking about homeless people, though, so I don't have much to say on this topic.



Oh, hey, an actual pro-primitivism argument for me to respond to. So, living a primitive life gives us a sense of being that is otherwise unattainable. First off, civilized Buddhists would disagree with you. Second, you're once again idealising the 'joy' of primitive life. Education, comfort, and freedom to pursue personal goals are all pretty fulfilling if you ask me. And the fact that you consider civilized life to be "sedentary drudge" but foraging in the woods all day not to be is again laughable. If you're really so sick of your boring city life, then go live on a commune for a few years and see if that solves all your problems. You haven't given me any indication that you're speaking from actual experience instead of just uninformed idealism.



Since the alternative to civilization seems to be throwing away all our scientific progress and wandering around in the woods being 'at one with nature' until the planet dies out, I'm not too worried about the imbalance in nature that civilization has created. Since scientific progress has given us the chance to outlive our planet and our solar system, civilized humanity could end up being the savior of all life one day. That doesn't sound like much of a failed experiment to me. Rather, I would say that a stagnant, unprogressive ecosystem with no way of saving itself from cosmic destruction is far more of a failed experiment.

Your prejudice against exploration and progress is quite amazing to me, really. You talk about the appreciation one could get by 'simply existing', yet you cannot appreciate all of the achievements in science, philosophy, and art which has come from stepping outside our simplistic animal roles. You think that philosophical conversations, like the one we're having, are one of the many horrible things which has come from our not living like all the other animals. You're against all of our aspirations to understand the world around us. You think we should live sheltered in ignorance of all that mystery and intricacy. We should be content just to live, unconcerned with how short, insignificant, and meaningless our lives would be in the grand scheme of things.

The very beauty of being human is that we can learn and understand so much about the world around us. We are the only form of life we know of which is capable of such remarkable feats. There is, of course, a risk to all the power in that knowledge, but it's a risk I'm willing to accept, just as you're willing to accept the risk of being hunted in the wild. I would rather celebrate our explorations, and see how far they take us, than just give up and accept a kill-and-be-killed fate in the cycle of nature.

I don't know how to do what you asked about quotes and readability. I only recently learned how to use the quote function at all. I'm not computer savvy. Sorry.

"Killing off" are your words. Did you even read the post i made to scourge i directed you towards in response to the issue concerning population? Some anarcho-primitivists are not in favor of killing anyone off. Some are probably pacifists.

I didn't really start this thread to make a detailed justification of forager living over civilized living, but since that is where you wish to go, i will comply.

no charts or unquestioning optimism is necessary. The simple fact that wilderness existed for millions of years of human evolution while it has seen a precipitous decline from civilizational attacks in the past 10,000 years presents a pretty clear picture of the stark contrasts between the two ways of life.

The "simple mindedness" you speak of I celebrate and not denigrate for in it is a vestige of our ancient connection with simplicity. All these culturally engaged citizens are just rushing from one thing to the next without stepping back and really thinking about whether we have lost some sense of connection to something larger then our egos.

If you lived in nature you would most likely want to feed yourself and protect yourself if attacked, however, my comment was made to indicate that this desire for safety, freedom to act outside nature, avoidance of hunger are things i feel represent an urge to control that is reinforced by civilizational biases. On the other hand, primitive peoples have a more mature understanding of the balances of life and are willing to accept certain natural processes like bioregional fluctuations in food supply, predation relationships, population control measures that are naturally enforced, etc. These are all the things civilization tries to repress.

You speak of lifespans being increased, but i don't see that as a positive either in itself or especially considering what has been sacrificed to attain the increases. I see foragers dying in their 30's in Africa but they lived meaningful lives both socially and ecologically. Again, the desire to control everything is the key civilizational bias. Trying to survive is one thing, and all species will do it, but when you enter the realm of man cum god, which is the advent of domestication/civilizaton, we have taken our simple desire for survival and turned it into a worldwide plague.

Why is Diogenes as an example laughable? You are using the few people you talked to for 5 seconds at the local convenience store as an example. Your experiences are limited with the homeless as are mine, but i don't make the same assumptions you do about their interest or lack of interest in philosophy.

I have learned a lot from studying Zen, however, i think there are many problematic aspects of buddhism. My ultimate criticism is that it has no instrinsic relationship to wilderness. The sense of being attained in civilization, whether influenced by buddhism or not, is not the same as the sense of being in the wilderness.

I used to think going to school, pursuing civilized interests like music and "comforts" like having air conditioning, using an umbrella when it rains, etc. were fulfilling until i woke up from the civilized dream and connected with something more meaningful.

"foraging in the woods all day." this is highly debatable. i wouldn't be opposed to spending substantial portions of time engaged in foraging or related activities because i value the activity and don't see myself as outside the natural context where i shouldn't have to do these things like other animals, however, various anthropological studies have indicated the estimated time to procure daily subsistence needs among hunter-gatherers is hardly "all day," but more along the lines of a few hours per day. richard lee's work with the kung san is a good example of this.

I'd rather live in a wilderness world where i can't control possible cataclysms on earth then to sacrifice that wholeness of being simply because something might happen in the future like a gamma ray burst or whatever. if it happens, it happens. extinctions have happened, they will happen, and we may be part of it. in the time between now and the next large extinction uncaused by humanity, i say let's stop trying to control everything and we might find some enjoyment in the process. this idea that we will be the saviour of other species is ridiculous considering the number of species we've already been responsible for killing off. no one appointed humanity as the decision maker for whether mass extinctions occur or not, and trying to stop them occuring naturally is attaining a level of power i feel is arrogant and dangerous. As george carlin once said, "meddling with nature is what got us into the problem in the first place." i don't expect you to accept this line of reasoning but at least you can't say no one ever laid it out for you.

Ecosystems and species ultimately fail to protect themselves from certain external circumstances, like comets or whatever, however, new ecosystems and species arise over time. I appreciate this process and am willing to accept that humanity is just another species trying to survive but very well could be eliminated like any plant or animal. Your definition of failed experiment is not being able to control the universe. No species can or should, and the only one's who think they can or should are 21st century civilized consumers who have lost connection with any reality beyond the simulations we repdroduce ourselves within.

 

[Scourge of God]

first of all, although this may seem like an unimportant point, i don't consider myself a primitivist. Although i am associated with what is called anarcho-primitivism in certain concrete ways, i do not believe in classifying complex thoughts and actions into ideologies ala any "ism."

And yet, you promote a solution that could only be undertaken with the aid of that most Ism of Isms: fascism.

With that said, there are various approaches to dealing with population issues in regards to returning to more natural ways of living outside techno-society. For example, there is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Another example is a transition from garden agriculture to foraging. Another example is industrial sabotage. There are various ways, some involving force, others not, which could be utilized to reduce population to more natural, harmonious levels. I have my inclinations which to a certian extent combines various elements of these strategic approaches.

Translation - there are two possible approaches to achieving primitivist goals:

1. Talking about it on the internet because it makes me feel cool

or

2. Genocide

Nice ideology you've constructed for yourself there, faggot.

 

[Έρεβος]

You're like 17, right? You have such strong opinions about things i doubt you have spent any significant time trying to understand. My advice would be to not be so quick to pass judgement just to reassure yourself how right you think you are. I mean seriously, i haven't even given an answer to scourge's question yet and your remarks indicate you have already mentally blocked accepting any possible answer i would give by claiming pirmitivism is "pointless." Maybe i'm off base with these comments, but then again maybe not.

Age, eh? <3

Any significant time? I'm am rather sure I've spent more time honestly trying to "understand" primitivism than yourself, as I considered the philosophy for quite a long time - a very naive time of my life. Primivitism gives up all advances human nature has led to, positive or otherwise - yet hypocritically is not able to reject all technology (or humans couldn't survive). Aside from core philosophical ails it is simply unworkable. Humans naturally advance in technology; it's part of our nature. We evolved reason, advanced thought, which naturally is put to work. Primivitism claims to be "all about nature" while in reality rejects our own nature. Technology is not the cause of the problem primitivism attempts to cure, the problem is the modern idea of owning/ruling the earth, seeing it as a resource to exploit - it is how the technology is used. We shall always have technology, and always be advancing it, trying to prevent that is foolish and naive. What needs to be done is change how technology is viewed, and how the earth is viewed.

 

[Έρεβος]

If primitivism is so retarded, then why can I, someone who is associated with anarcho-primitivism, be able to give such coherent replires that demonstrate the validity of my points?

Can you say logical fallacy ... ?

Another thing ... It is extremely unlikely the human species is capable of living, in mass, in the wild, any longer. We are not the same species we were thousands of years ago; we've evolved/devolved in many ways. We are less fast, less strong, less hardy, etc. We rely on technology (drugs, meds, etc.) to save us from disease - which would kill nearly all humankind without the technology, easily. Our bodies aren't capable of collecting enough food to fuel the amount of energy it took to collect the food, any longer. It would require thousands of years of slow adaptation to redevelope the traits which allowed us to survive in the wild, maybe, probably, much longer (we've had agriculture for many thousands of years ... ).

Primitivism does not work, simple. It would require a huge catastrophe to bring humanity back to a primitive state - otherwise it is impossible. And then humanity would not remain in that state for very much time at all. We would, for one, need to quickly develope some technology to survive, and then our nature would cause us to continue developing. Human's greatest instinct is to use reason.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

And yet, you promote a solution that could only be undertaken with the aid of that most Ism of Isms: fascism.



Translation - there are two possible approaches to achieving primitivist goals:

1. Talking about it on the internet because it makes me feel cool

or

2. Genocide

Nice ideology you've constructed for yourself there, faggot.

Fascism and genocide are your words, not mine. I think you just use those words to not deal with what i'm saying.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Age, eh? <3

Any significant time? I'm am rather sure I've spent more time honestly trying to "understand" primitivism than yourself, as I considered the philosophy for quite a long time - a very naive time of my life. Primivitism gives up all advances human nature has led to, positive or otherwise - yet hypocritically is not able to reject all technology (or humans couldn't survive). Aside from core philosophical ails it is simply unworkable. Humans naturally advance in technology; it's part of our nature. We evolved reason, advanced thought, which naturally is put to work. Primivitism claims to be "all about nature" while in reality rejects our own nature. Technology is not the cause of the problem primitivism attempts to cure, the problem is the modern idea of owning/ruling the earth, seeing it as a resource to exploit - it is how the technology is used. We shall always have technology, and always be advancing it, trying to prevent that is foolish and naive. What needs to be done is change how technology is viewed, and how the earth is viewed.

We could probably live without the simplest of tools as well, however, we certainly don't need complex technological systems that are based on a division of labor and resource extraction through industrialism. Millions of years of pre-history demonstrate this. Always remember the difference between the simple tools we used for millions of years and the relatively recent complex systems we have imprisoned ourselves within.

If it is part of our "nature" to "advance" to where we are right now in techno-society, why did it take millions of years? Maybe because it is not our "nature" and is instead a bad choice.

I agree that our ideas about ruling and owning the earth are a big part of the problem, but one could slightly abandon those ideas without addressing deeper problems of industrialism, domestication, etc.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Can you say logical fallacy ... ?

Another thing ... It is extremely unlikely the human species is capable of living, in mass, in the wild, any longer. We are not the same species we were thousands of years ago; we've evolved/devolved in many ways. We are less fast, less strong, less hardy, etc. We rely on technology (drugs, meds, etc.) to save us from disease - which would kill nearly all humankind without the technology, easily. Our bodies aren't capable of collecting enough food to fuel the amount of energy it took to collect the food, any longer. It would require thousands of years of slow adaptation to redevelope the traits which allowed us to survive in the wild, maybe, probably, much longer (we've had agriculture for many thousands of years ... ).

Primitivism does not work, simple. It would require a huge catastrophe to bring humanity back to a primitive state - otherwise it is impossible. And then humanity would not remain in that state for very much time at all. We would, for one, need to quickly develope some technology to survive, and then our nature would cause us to continue developing. Human's greatest instinct is to use reason.

I don't think it would take as long as you suppose for humans to readapt to the wild. For those who are in relatively good shape to begin with, the transition will not be as big of problem and for those who are less able to adapt, the exercise mentally and physically will be good for them and if they can't adapt then they die. You don't see many obese foragers in africa or the amazon, so i don't feel too sorry for those civilized people who eat till their hearts explode and can't make the transition to the forest.

A "huge catastrophe," whatever that might be, could cause a transition to wilderness, however, i've outlined other options. I'm not very optimistic about largely voluntary change, however, i never claimed to be a pacifist or law abiding citizen either.

 

[OldScratch]

I don't think it would take as long as you suppose for humans to readapt to the wild. For those who are in relatively good shape to begin with, the transition will not be as big of problem and for those who are less able to adapt, the exercise mentally and physically will be good for them and if they can't adapt then they die. You don't see many obese foragers in africa or the amazon, so i don't feel too sorry for those civilized people who eat till their hearts explode and can't make the transition to the forest.

A "huge catastrophe," whatever that might be, could cause a transition to wilderness, however, i've outlined other options. I'm not very optimistic about largely voluntary change, however, i never claimed to be a pacifist or law abiding citizen either.

I, like many here, am of the general opinion that western man has become to a large degree "over-civilized" in many an unhealthy way. We are social-slaves and consumers first and foremost - concerned only with comfort, convenience and upholding mouldy, outdated "values" and "virtues" that are really nothing of the kind. Still, with all that said, I fail to see where the life or lifestyle of the forager in South America or Africa, is in any way more appealing or ideal. Honestly, I would sooner take my chances among the bloated couch-potatoes, Mall-queens and their corpulent children than go primitive. I don't have to be one of them to still be civilized...or do I? What am I missing?

*I must confess, but for that pesky uber-religiosity and inevitably suicidal pacifism, I've always found the Amish lifestyle somewhat fascinating - not quite primitive to be sure, but devoid of much of the mass-produced, materialist/capitalist nonsense of the day.

 

[speed]

I, like many here, am of the general opinion that western man has become to a large degree "over-civilized" in many an unhealthy way. We are social-slaves and consumers first and foremost - concerned only with comfort, convenience and upholding mouldy, outdated "values" and "virtues" that are really nothing of the kind. Still, with all that said, I fail to see where the life or lifestyle of the forager in South America or Africa, is in any way more appealing or ideal. Honestly, I would sooner take my chances among the bloated couch-potatoes, Mall-queens and their corpulent children than go primitive. I don't have to be one of them to still be civilized...or do I? What am I missing?

Ditto. The romanticism of primitivism has always been present, from Tacitus to Picasso and Conrad. And it is essentally, freedom from the sin and guilt of modern society.

 

[Scourge of God]

Fascism and genocide are your words, not mine. I think you just use those words to not deal with what i'm saying.

I use the words because they describe what you propose, even if you're afraid to admit it to yourself.

I mean, what else do you call the deliberately engineered deaths of the overwhelming majority of humans, if not genocide?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

If it is part of our "nature" to "advance" to where we are right now in techno-society, why did it take millions of years? Maybe because it is not our "nature" and is instead a bad choice.

Same damn reason evolution in general takes so long. By your logic, it isn't part of our nature to be humans as opposed to chimpanzees, just because it took millions of years for us to evolve from them.

You're one of the most pointless people to debate with ever - not only because your reasoning is full of holes, but because you're hopelessly idealizing this whole concept of primitivism.

The fact is, I'm more comfortable, better nourished, more educated, have more to see and experience, and have more freedoms, including the freedom to leave civilization and live a primitive life if I really gave a rat's ass about it - all because of civilization. Another fact is that I enjoy all of these benefits. If I didn't, I'd go live on a commune. No one's forcing me to do anything.

If all you're going to do is tell us how much we're lying to ourselves and how oh so horrible all these advancements are, I can just as easily tell you you're lying to yourself that living in the woods is so much better - especially since you don't even practice what you preach.

You might as well be advocating suicide, and citing all the wonderful benefits of not having to experience anything, of 'being one with nothingness', and telling us that we're all lying to ourselves if we think we can actually enjoy being alive. You can idealize anything the hell you want, but it doesn't change what people actually prefer as their lifestyle.

Go live in the woods if it makes you so happy. I'm fine here in the city, with my college education, internet access, and everything else.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

I use the words because they describe what you propose, even if you're afraid to admit it to yourself.

I mean, what else do you call the deliberately engineered deaths of the overwhelming majority of humans, if not genocide?

"deliberately engineered deaths" is your phrase, not mine. If you actually read what i wrote, i say nothing of fascism, genocide or deliberately engineered deaths. you have failed to demonstrate how what i wrote equates with any of the above. let me be a little clearer. One thing i actually wrote was the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Key word being voluntary. That was the very first thing i mentioned, so how you draw your conclusions is beyond me.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Same damn reason evolution in general takes so long. By your logic, it isn't part of our nature to be humans as opposed to chimpanzees, just because it took millions of years for us to evolve from them.

You're one of the most pointless people to debate with ever - not only because your reasoning is full of holes, but because you're hopelessly idealizing this whole concept of primitivism.

The fact is, I'm more comfortable, better nourished, more educated, have more to see and experience, and have more freedoms, including the freedom to leave civilization and live a primitive life if I really gave a rat's ass about it - all because of civilization. Another fact is that I enjoy all of these benefits. If I didn't, I'd go live on a commune. No one's forcing me to do anything.

If all you're going to do is tell us how much we're lying to ourselves and how oh so horrible all these advancements are, I can just as easily tell you you're lying to yourself that living in the woods is so much better - especially since you don't even practice what you preach.

You might as well be advocating suicide, and citing all the wonderful benefits of not having to experience anything, of 'being one with nothingness', and telling us that we're all lying to ourselves if we think we can actually enjoy being alive. You can idealize anything the hell you want, but it doesn't change what people actually prefer as their lifestyle.

Go live in the woods if it makes you so happy. I'm fine here in the city, with my college education, internet access, and everything else.

people make choices. we made a choice to build stone tools 2 million years ago, and we generally made the same tools for most of human history. then we made a choice to domesticate, industrialize, leap into virtual reality, etc. If you simply want to chalk every single choice humanity has ever made into a so-called "nature," the concept of human nature looses any real meaning. the key element of choice is always forgotten by those who want to justify their pet projects, like civilization, by appealing to "human nature." oh, it's just our nature. well, it's part of our nature, but the choice to refuse technology and everything else i've mentioned is also part of our nature. we have made certain decisions and been forced into certain directions throughout history, but they are not inevitable.

You keep saying more comfortable, but i've said over and over i don't value civilized comfort. it makes us soft by taking us away from living in nature and because of this destroys not only our ability to be self-sufficient but eliminates wilderness, which i feel is arrogant. More educated? But this is relative. You are educated to do certain things, but not other things. For example, you are more knowledgable with computers then a forager, but you are less knowledgable in identifying wild edible plants. Better nourished? But many foragers experience very good health, however, suffer periodically from food shortages. But i've alread explained this isn't something to fear but something people with a more mature understanding of their place in nature accept. More to see? yeah, more destructive civilized bullshit to see. Again, you want all these freedoms to travel on an airplane to see some other country or whatever, but you don't ask at what cost do these "freedoms" come at. It's just civilizational bias after civilizational bias with you. Think outside the cage.

No one's forcing anyone? Go live in the woods? Yeah, i got news for you buddy, ask any surviving member of a foraging or horticultural society in any part of the world today how civilization works and you will realize that this so called freedom to just go live in the wilderness is an illusion civilized people adhere to in order to not see the reality of primitive peoples being destroyed/assimilated the world over for centuries. A return to the wilderness is possible and i think desirable, however, it is no where near as easy as the cliched civilized comment "just go hunt if you want to" makes it seem.

 

[Scourge of God]

"deliberately engineered deaths" is your phrase, not mine. If you actually read what i wrote, i say nothing of fascism, genocide or deliberately engineered deaths. you have failed to demonstrate how what i wrote equates with any of the above.

What you wrote is irrelevant because it will not and cannot happen. People don't 'volunteer' for extinction, nor can you support the current global population on subsistance agriculture (much less on foraging). That being the case, mass killing is an integral part of actually achieving primitivism whether you explicitly state so or not.

One thing i actually wrote was the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Key word being voluntary. That was the very first thing i mentioned, so how you draw your conclusions is beyond me.

The Voluntary Human Extinctiom Movement has been around for more than a decade, but no one is volunteering. Nor are they going to. Welcome to reality, Flabby McBitchcakes.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

What you wrote is irrelevant because it will not and cannot happen. People don't 'volunteer' for extinction, nor can you support the current global population on subsistance agriculture (much less on foraging). That being the case, mass killing is an integral part of actually achieving primitivism whether you explicitly state so or not.



The Voluntary Human Extinctiom Movement has been around for more than a decade, but no one is volunteering. Nor are they going to. Welcome to reality, Flabby McBitchcakes.

I don't expect much of anything from people, i'm just talking about possibilities, pointing out that there are various methods that fall far short of genocide or any violence at all. whether people accept them or not, well i'm not very optimistic about any method, voluntary or not. people may not accept voluntary exctinction, but accepting a reduction in birthrate is more acceptable, but people have to believe strong enough in what they are trying to attain, ie. wilderness lifestyle, for them to voluntarily reduce population extensively enough. Garden agriculture can be a way for people to more smoothly transition from industrial dependence to foraging. Coupled with reduce population, this strategy could work. Now simply telling me that many people are not willing to do this doesn't really mean much to me considering i am already aware of this reality. I think some element of force may be necessary to propel people in this direction, altough outright killing may not be necessary. Hence, my mentioning of industrial sabotage. Ultimately, it may take drastic changes in environmental conditions for any of these methods to gain more success. So it may take the ushering in of the next ice age for industrial sabotage to have any substantial impact in hastening civilization's collapse. I don't know all the answers, but i do know it is possible to create foraging lifestyles voluntarily and peacefully if people were willing. That is all. I do not support fascism.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

people make choices. we made a choice to build stone tools 2 million years ago, and we generally made the same tools for most of human history. then we made a choice to domesticate, industrialize, leap into virtual reality, etc. If you simply want to chalk every single choice humanity has ever made into a so-called "nature," the concept of human nature looses any real meaning. the key element of choice is always forgotten by those who want to justify their pet projects, like civilization, by appealing to "human nature." oh, it's just our nature. well, it's part of our nature, but the choice to refuse technology and everything else i've mentioned is also part of our nature. we have made certain decisions and been forced into certain directions throughout history, but they are not inevitable.

I was mainly responding to your "why did it take a million years" comment, which I saw as irrelevant to the phenomenon of human technological advance. I didn't mean to relate these advances so closely to evolution. You can argue if you want that technology wasn't inevitable, but it still seems pretty likely given the way the human mind works. There's no point in debating something this theoretical, though.

You keep saying more comfortable, but i've said over and over i don't value civilized comfort. it makes us soft by taking us away from living in nature and because of this destroys not only our ability to be self-sufficient but eliminates wilderness, which i feel is arrogant. More educated? But this is relative. You are educated to do certain things, but not other things. For example, you are more knowledgable with computers then a forager, but you are less knowledgable in identifying wild edible plants. Better nourished? But many foragers experience very good health, however, suffer periodically from food shortages. But i've alread explained this isn't something to fear but something people with a more mature understanding of their place in nature accept. More to see? yeah, more destructive civilized bullshit to see. Again, you want all these freedoms to travel on an airplane to see some other country or whatever, but you don't ask at what cost do these "freedoms" come at. It's just civilizational bias after civilizational bias with you. Think outside the cage.

This is great. I point out to you your hypocrisy in accusing me of bias when all you do is idealize nature, and you go right ahead and continue accusing me of bias. Thanks for showing me once again how wonderful a debater you are. Clearly I should just assume that you have no bias against society whatsoever, when you're telling me that living in the woods is worth making huge sacrifices in comfort, safety, health, freedom, and pleasure, all so that I can 'be at one with nature', whatever that's worth. Yup, no bias here on your part. Congratulations.

Let's run through your arguments against each of my pro-society points:

Comfort: I assume that by 'destroying our ability to be self-sufficient', you mean self-sufficient in the wilderness. This is fair enough; most city folk probably would have a hard time getting food in the woods. That's only important, though, if we're dependent on such skills for survival. Since you assume unquestioningly that living in the woods is the perfect way of life, naturally you're going to value knowing woodland survival skills. Just remember that those skills only get you as far as your available resources. If a drought comes and kills off your whole food supply, you're fucked. In civilized life, that drought's effects are minimized since more food can be trucked in from other parts of the world which aren't in drought. Of course, you're going to say that that's all fine because you're willing to accept the risks of nature. Accepting the shortcomings of wilderness life, however, does not constitute an argument. You need to show me why they're worth accepting, and you're not doing that.

Education: This ties in to my previous point. I don't give a shit about learning to forage, because I don't have to in a city. However, yet another point in favor of civilzed life is that if I did give a shit, I could take classes in horticulture, and then I would know very well how to forage. However, your tribal shaman isn't going to do much good in teaching me math, science or history, since these all require literacy, which is a product of civilization.

Nourishment: You basically just said that you're okay accepting starvation if that's the whim of nature. As I've already pointed out, admitting your shortcoming does not constitute an argument.

Freedoms: All you did here is say that I value these freedoms because of civilized bias. What is that supposed to mean? Are you telling me it's impossible for me to enjoy the freedom to drive places, study at college, listen to music, etc. etc.? As I pointed out earlier, the fact that you unquestioningly idealize the supreme, perfect joy of living in the wilderness, which you've already admitted is more dangerous and less comfortable, shows plenty of bias.

No one's forcing anyone? Go live in the woods? Yeah, i got news for you buddy, ask any surviving member of a foraging or horticultural society in any part of the world today how civilization works and you will realize that this so called freedom to just go live in the wilderness is an illusion civilized people adhere to in order to not see the reality of primitive peoples being destroyed/assimilated the world over for centuries. A return to the wilderness is possible and i think desirable, however, it is no where near as easy as the cliched civilized comment "just go hunt if you want to" makes it seem.

In my last post, I focused entirely on comparing the personal benefits of civilized vs. wilderness life. The long-term, planet-wide benefits are a whole other issue, and I'd rather not reiterate everything I said about that topic several posts ago, since I have no idea if you're even going to read everything I just typed in this post. I expect that you'll continue making the same arguments over again, ignoring the flaws in them which I have meticulously lined out for you; and then I'll get tired of arguing with someone who can't defend his claims, and find something better to do. Or maybe you can prove otherwise to me. We'll see.