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

[Crucified Spartacus]

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.



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.



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.

I've already said why what you call "the shortcoming of wilderness life" are worth accepting. The style of being is fulfilling socially for our own species and is most beneficial overall for ecological diversity and stability, barring cosmic happenings i don't think we could or should control.

I've already addressed your other point about moving back and forth between civ and wilderness. Your ability to take horticulture classes doesn't change the fact that the "we own nature" mentality that is behind setting up wilderness reserves is problematic and destructive for various reasons. I think ecosystems and people's relationships with nature would be healthier without this arrogant civilized interference/attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

it comes down to the fact that you are more attached to human made things then natural made beings. You'd rather have your computer then live amongst your fellow species as an equal and not a superior/destroyer. You seem scared of the wilderness. Maybe you are scared of death in general? I'd recommend some bedtime reading of relevant sections of Heidegger's Being and Time if this is the case.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I've already said why what you call "the shortcoming of wilderness life" are worth accepting. The style of being is fulfilling socially for our own species and is most beneficial overall for ecological diversity and stability, barring cosmic happenings i don't think we could or should control.

I've already addressed your other point about moving back and forth between civ and wilderness. Your ability to take horticulture classes doesn't change the fact that the "we own nature" mentality that is behind setting up wilderness reserves is problematic and destructive for various reasons. I think ecosystems and people's relationships with nature would be healthier without this arrogant civilized interference/attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

Well, this line of argument is going to lead us into debating the long-term/grand-scale aspects of the situation, so I want to make sure we're clear on the personal aspects first.

Let's imagine, for a minute, that there were nothing at stake on the grand scale. Suppose civilization isn't actually destroying the environment. I don't want to get into that argument yet. Just suppose that we're discussing civilized versus wilderness life purely as a matter of personal taste. My question is: do you accept the following as the advantages of either side:

Civilization: better safety, comfort, nourishment, education, and freedom to pursue personal goals.

Wilderness: a sense of oneness with nature

This seems to be the way the balance is stacked. All the other points which you just made in your last post seem to be appeals to the grand-scale aspects of the problem (i.e. "ecological diversity and stability", "destruction of wilderness", "human control over the ecosystem").

The reason I'm pointing this out is because this was basically the conclusion of my entire previous post. I value the safety, comfort, etc. of civilization, and you value the sense of oneness from living in the wild. Does this sound like a fair assessment?

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Wilderness is a cap on what humans and any species are able to do. For example, populations of any species can only exceed carrying capacity for a short period of time before a return of balance. This is one of the major reasons i see wilderness as superior to civilization. The means to keep population under control involuntarily is best for species diversity and is best for keeping us in the band structure of foragers. Why is this good socially? Many reasons, one of the main being it prevents the state from arising. The state is an inherently representational institution that takes decision making power away from face to face communities and abstracts it into centralized power. See, now i have to go on and explain why the state is a bad thing. it would take me a long time to lay out all these arguments, which i did mention a few days ago that i didn't come here to make extensive arguments and that is why theoretical and historical material is available online and in libraries. i've gone into a lot more detial then i planned on originally when i started this thread, however, it is not sufficient for you. maybe nothing from people with my perspective would be sufficient. the resources are there. i recommend you do some independent research. read brave new world and really think about what the savage is saying. maybe spend some time in a wilderness area. maybe bring along Colin Turnbull's The Forest People on your wilderness trip and read/think about these issues within the context of wilderness.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Well, this line of argument is going to lead us into debating the long-term/grand-scale aspects of the situation, so I want to make sure we're clear on the personal aspects first.

Let's imagine, for a minute, that there were nothing at stake on the grand scale. Suppose civilization isn't actually destroying the environment. I don't want to get into that argument yet. Just suppose that we're discussing civilized versus wilderness life purely as a matter of personal taste. My question is: do you accept the following as the advantages of either side:

Civilization: better safety, comfort, nourishment, education, and freedom to pursue personal goals.

Wilderness: a sense of oneness with nature

This seems to be the way the balance is stacked. All the other points which you just made in your last post seem to be appeals to the grand-scale aspects of the problem (i.e. "ecological diversity and stability", "destruction of wilderness", "human control over the ecosystem").

The reason I'm pointing this out is because this was basically the conclusion of my entire previous post. I value the safety, comfort, etc. of civilization, and you value the sense of oneness from living in the wild. Does this sound like a fair assessment?

It's not simply a sense of oneness with nature. my last post above talks about the state which is another key aspect of social issues relevant to the matter. i don't buy the nourishment argument. i think foragers can be better nourished than civilized peoples, however, not 24/7/365.

Safety? Relative. You are safer from grizzly bears but not radiation from industrialism.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Wilderness is a cap on what humans and any species are able to do ...

Well, before you worry too much about critiquing the state, let me ask some clarifying questions. How big a role do you really think it plays in the life of a person in a developed country? What kind of decision making power do you think the state is taking away? Is it the various laws that regulate lifestyle choices, i.e. drug use, abortion, weapon ownership, etc.?

I'd still like to finish up the debate on the personal aspects of civ/wilderness life, so I'd like to talk about the state a bit, since it pertains to the personal. You could argue that the sacrifice of living under a state is one of the disadvantages of civilized life. However, I'm still going to question just how limiting that sacrifice is. See, from my perspective, even with all the laws I have to obey in the state, I still have a lot more freedoms, resources, and comforts than I do in the wilderness.

So, how severe do you think the personal sacrifices of living under the state are, and why?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Alright, I need to go to bed, so I'll get back to this mess later on (assuming you still want to continue it). My goal is to tie up the personal advantages debate before moving on to global matters. If this seems misguided to you, then please let me know, and state why. I think this level of focus will help keep things organized and coherent, though.

edit: Check your private messages.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Well, before you worry too much about critiquing the state, let me ask some clarifying questions. How big a role do you really think it plays in the life of a person in a developed country? What kind of decision making power do you think the state is taking away? Is it the various laws that regulate lifestyle choices, i.e. drug use, abortion, weapon ownership, etc.?

I'd still like to finish up the debate on the personal aspects of civ/wilderness life, so I'd like to talk about the state a bit, since it pertains to the personal. You could argue that the sacrifice of living under a state is one of the disadvantages of civilized life. However, I'm still going to question just how limiting that sacrifice is. See, from my perspective, even with all the laws I have to obey in the state, I still have a lot more freedoms, resources, and comforts than I do in the wilderness.

So, how severe do you think the personal sacrifices of living under the state are, and why?

The biggest problem with the state is the representational factor. The face to face interaction among individual people forming a community where everyone knows/lives with eachother is sacrificed so a very small minority of power holders can make decisions. The sense of meaningful interaction among the small communities where everyone engages freely in debate/decision making can not be replaced by voting every four years. Voting is a meaningless ritual, a concept that doesn't even exist in forager societies, something that was created by representational democracies to cover up the fact that the authoritarian underpinnings of monarchical and oligarchical states of ancient/medieval times did not essentially change with the rise of modern nation states. The anarchist Bakunin probably explained it the best and would be a better source for anarchist theory then me, although I don't like many things Bakunin says. I'm not interested in talking about specific laws. The state sacrifices direct engagement on the alter of representation. Not very different then art, huh?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The state sacrifices direct engagement on the alter of representation. Not very different then art, huh?

Okay. Anarchy theory. Let's do that for a second.

You say people give up a lot of their decision-making power to the state. Keep in mind, though, that a lot of that decision-making goes toward things like building infrastructure (roads, power lines, water pipes, etc.), managing the economy, and conducting foreign relations, things that most people want nothing to do with. I don't think that kind of decision-making is a sacrifice people are making unwillingly. After all, there are millions and millions of people living in modern states. It's just natural that someone takes up the job of coordinating all the common tasks of those people.

You also seem to say something to the effect that government makes people within communities unsocial toward each other - that because people live under a state, they don't bother to interact with each other on as meaningful a level. I think you should be looking elsewhere for the causes of this. Take, for example, that modern lifestyles generally entail spending more time indoors. This is because people no longer go out and farm/forage for a living - they usually work inside some building or another, which they drive to straight from their homes. I think there's much more for the primitivist to say than the anarchist regarding the modern decline of communities.

On the other hand, of course, we've seen the rise of internet communities thanks to computer/communications technology. These communities give people access to a much wider pool of social interactivity than is possible without the internet. For a lot of people, this validates the 'abstraction' of not actually speaking face-to-face with people. (How many anarcho-primitivists do you think I could find to debate with if I didn't have the internet?) Still, though, the internet doesn't keep people from having face-to-face social interactions; those are still available to someone as soon as they walk out the door and go to their job, class, or local bar.

As far as anarchy goes, I don't even see the point of that philosophy. It seems to demand huge sacrifices in the level of structure and coordination in a society, and it also goes to naive lengths to assume that people will respect the vacuum of power created by the lack of government. As long as there's control to be had, somebody's going to be grabbing for it. This isn't a problem with civilization, or with representational government. It's just the way some humans work. Some people are born to be leaders and achievers. Primitivism and anarchy is not going to stop that.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Okay. Anarchy theory. Let's do that for a second.

You say people give up a lot of their decision-making power to the state. Keep in mind, though, that a lot of that decision-making goes toward things like building infrastructure (roads, power lines, water pipes, etc.), managing the economy, and conducting foreign relations, things that most people want nothing to do with. I don't think that kind of decision-making is a sacrifice people are making unwillingly. After all, there are millions and millions of people living in modern states. It's just natural that someone takes up the job of coordinating all the common tasks of those people.

You also seem to say something to the effect that government makes people within communities unsocial toward each other - that because people live under a state, they don't bother to interact with each other on as meaningful a level. I think you should be looking elsewhere for the causes of this. Take, for example, that modern lifestyles generally entail spending more time indoors. This is because people no longer go out and farm/forage for a living - they usually work inside some building or another, which they drive to straight from their homes. I think there's much more for the primitivist to say than the anarchist regarding the modern decline of communities.

On the other hand, of course, we've seen the rise of internet communities thanks to computer/communications technology. These communities give people access to a much wider pool of social interactivity than is possible without the internet. For a lot of people, this validates the 'abstraction' of not actually speaking face-to-face with people. (How many anarcho-primitivists do you think I could find to debate with if I didn't have the internet?) Still, though, the internet doesn't keep people from having face-to-face social interactions; those are still available to someone as soon as they walk out the door and go to their job, class, or local bar.

As far as anarchy goes, I don't even see the point of that philosophy. It seems to demand huge sacrifices in the level of structure and coordination in a society, and it also goes to naive lengths to assume that people will respect the vacuum of power created by the lack of government. As long as there's control to be had, somebody's going to be grabbing for it. This isn't a problem with civilization, or with representational government. It's just the way some humans work. Some people are born to be leaders and achievers. Primitivism and anarchy is not going to stop that.

If the fact that there are so many people prevents anarchy, that to me is another good reason to lower the population. However, most anarchists throughout history are not anti-civ, therefore, they think anarchy is manageable with millions or billions or people. it certainly seems like people don't want to do the things politicians and business people do, and i wouldn't even argue they should be doing them because i don't think civilization should exist. I think people are manipulated their entire lives into giving up direct autonomy in favor of leaders in many spheres of life. To separate out what people supposedly want and what they have simply been brainwashed into believing ever since saying the pledge of allegiance in 1st grade is a little difficult. Various examples throughout history, such as the Spanish Civil War, The ukranian rebellion led by Nestor Makhno against the bolsheviks, etc. demonstrate that people are often willing to take matters into their own hands, thus proving anarchy could work.

Good point about people not going outside.

I didn't say people couldn't still talk face to face, it just seems to drastically decrease with the more technology we have. My main point was the decrease in face to face decision making that occurs in foraging societies as oppossed to representation which is anti-face to face.

Even if people are "born to be leaders," which i find a highly questionable/mystical proposition, surviving pre-historical socieities demonstrate quite clearly that those who seek power can often be kept in check and out of instituionalized positions of dominance/influence. If the Kung San and Mbuti could do it, so could we if the will was there.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

If the fact that there are so many people prevents anarchy, that to me is another good reason to lower the population. However, most anarchists throughout history are not anti-civ, therefore, they think anarchy is manageable with millions or billions or people. it certainly seems like people don't want to do the things politicians and business people do, and i wouldn't even argue they should be doing them because i don't think civilization should exist. I think people are manipulated their entire lives into giving up direct autonomy in favor of leaders in many spheres of life. To separate out what people supposedly want and what they have simply been brainwashed into believing ever since saying the pledge of allegiance in 1st grade is a little difficult. Various examples throughout history, such as the Spanish Civil War, The ukranian rebellion led by Nestor Makhno against the bolsheviks, etc. demonstrate that people are often willing to take matters into their own hands, thus proving anarchy could work.

Since we're debating anarchy for its own sake, I'll leave out primitivism concerns here. You made some vague attack on government based on suspicion of brainwashing, which seems pretty empty to me considering that there are so many people in developed countries who oppose their government (doesn't sound like very effective brainwashing to me). As far as your demonstration of how anarchy 'could work', I suggest you modify that statement to say that 'conditions for anarchy could be made to exist'. Examples of rebellion certainly don't show that anarchy could work, since these rebellions always give way to some new form of government (i.e. not anarchy). As far as I'm aware, anarchy is not working anywhere in the developed world, and never has.

I didn't say people couldn't still talk face to face, it just seems to drastically decrease with the more technology we have. My main point was the decrease in face to face decision making that occurs in foraging societies as oppossed to representation which is anti-face to face.

As long as I have a choice between face-to-face interaction and representative interaction, I really don't care that there's less of it with more technology. It's not evident that technology is on a path to completely destroy face-to-face interaction. If there's some reason why non-representative interaction is so important that it be the only form of interaction, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I suggest you abandon this claim, since you're using an internet forum after all.

Even if people are "born to be leaders," which i find a highly questionable/mystical proposition, surviving pre-historical socieities demonstrate quite clearly that those who seek power can often be kept in check and out of instituionalized positions of dominance/influence. If the Kung San and Mbuti could do it, so could we if the will was there.

Slight misinterpretation of what I meant by "born to be leaders". I'm not saying there must or should be leaders, I'm just saying that there exists among humans a type of personality which drives people of that personality to seek power. Obviously these people have more to gain in a civilized society, but that does not make civilization one giant machine bent on controlling the world. But that, once again, is a global concern. Right now I'm just trying to show that politicians aren't making civilized life miserable enough to warrant living in the woods - which I think I've shown pretty well in my above paragraphs.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Since we're debating anarchy for its own sake, I'll leave out primitivism concerns here. You made some vague attack on government based on suspicion of brainwashing, which seems pretty empty to me considering that there are so many people in developed countries who oppose their government (doesn't sound like very effective brainwashing to me). As far as your demonstration of how anarchy 'could work', I suggest you modify that statement to say that 'conditions for anarchy could be made to exist'. Examples of rebellion certainly don't show that anarchy could work, since these rebellions always give way to some new form of government (i.e. not anarchy). As far as I'm aware, anarchy is not working anywhere in the developed world, and never has.



As long as I have a choice between face-to-face interaction and representative interaction, I really don't care that there's less of it with more technology. It's not evident that technology is on a path to completely destroy face-to-face interaction. If there's some reason why non-representative interaction is so important that it be the only form of interaction, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I suggest you abandon this claim, since you're using an internet forum after all.



Slight misinterpretation of what I meant by "born to be leaders". I'm not saying there must or should be leaders, I'm just saying that there exists among humans a type of personality which drives people of that personality to seek power. Obviously these people have more to gain in a civilized society, but that does not make civilization one giant machine bent on controlling the world. But that, once again, is a global concern. Right now I'm just trying to show that politicians aren't making civilized life miserable enough to warrant living in the woods - which I think I've shown pretty well in my above paragraphs.

just because people break through the brainwashing doesn't mean it isn't being attempted, not to mention it being successful for the millions adhering to the state. what does "oppossed to government" mean anyway? certainly not anarchic inclinations. i think many of these non-engaged citizens who are skeptical of governments are cynical(in the bad sense of the word) and nihilistic(in the bad sense of the word) and could possibly go the anarchy direction but it means overcoming fears about the unknown which is hard for many.

Why this focus on the developed world all the time? Who cares whether anarchy is working in the developed world or non-developed world? The two examples of anarchy i mentioned, especially the ukranian example, came from areas that were far from the global leaders in industrialization. The IWW was right in the heart of the United States and anarchist movements have been around with varying degrees of success in Latin America, Africa and Asia for more then a century.

Well, yes, the anarchic rebellions have led to new governments, but by studying why this has happened, mistakes can be avoided in the future. Most people don't take the time to understand why these movements fail, they seem to be content to say they are doomed to fail, end of story. Intellectual laziness.

Technology doesn't have to completely destroy anything for it to be creating obvious problems, whether socially as in face to face interactions/decision making or ecologically. Just because i'm using an internet forum doesn't mean i think the internet should exist. I'm merely using it as a temporary medium to engage with other people, even though on a very depersonalized, ecologically destructive manner. Remember, this isn't simply an issue of face to face interaction, but of decision making power being either represented/centralized or direct in face to face societies. Socially and politically face to face interaction matters. Politically because it allows all people to engage and not be convinced/forced into surrendering autonomy to leaders. Socially because it keeps us as human animals engaged with the sensual, perceptive world, not a mediated virtual reality that can only be indicative of a species severed from nature and eachother.

Yeah, politicians are giving you all those wonderful things like being forced into the confines of school, manipulated day by day into being a consumer/citizen. what a great life.
people are so fucked with mentally from birth till 18 i find it amazing "critical thinkers" can claim people want what currently exists. We are all so brainwashed we often don't even know there are alternatives, let alone understand them. People are so anti-anarchy, right? That's what they want, the big strong father figure government to keep things in order and take on all the responsibilities? Well, when you are only ever told that anarchy=bomb throwing, maybe this distorts your perception of anarchy just a tad. how many people have anti-anarchy feelings after an extensive research of anarchist theory/history? how many opportunities does mainstream socieity offer one to seriously learn about anarchy or primitivism or anything for that matter other then what the state pushes down your throat in school? everything in the matrix is set up to perpetuate the existence of the matrix, making my and like minded people's task all the more difficult. when you walk into barnes and nobles bookstore, do you see books by Emma Goldman on the front shelf? Are they even in the store? No, you see some bullshit, entertainment reading like Harry Potter or whatever. i could go on. think about it.

 

[MetalBooger]

Even if people are "born to be leaders," which i find a highly questionable/mystical proposition, surviving pre-historical socieities demonstrate quite clearly that those who seek power can often be kept in check and out of instituionalized positions of dominance/influence. If the Kung San and Mbuti could do it, so could we if the will was there.

People are born to be leaders, its called charismatic authority, basic political concept. History has shown that hitler was born to be a leader. Everyone who was/is a leader was born to be a leader.

I know an anarchist, he wears alot of black and listens to the doors. No one likes him. By the way, anarchy doesnt work because there are natural hierarchies in every system known to man. Anarchy has a super positifve unrealistic view of human nature, that sadly does not exist in this temporal world, it requires everyone to be super fluffy and happy in order to exist.

IF you go back in history the reason why governments are formed, particularly seen in feudalism, was because small men wanted to seek the protection of more powerful men in the hopes to maintain order. From the Church, to the simple vassal landowner, to the mighty emperor, they are all here to make our society more stable and safer, at least in a temporal sense.

No, you see some bullshit, entertainment reading like Harry Potter or whatever. i could go on. think about it.

You fucking asshole, the reason why harry potter is there is because its such a good fucking book. How many books of Emma Goldman's would Barnes and NObles sell? The man is good and the man is here to stay. People work hard enough to put bread on the table, they dont need an anarchy making their life even more harder. You need a government, simple, the other option would be a shitty violent iraqi situations.

 

[Έρεβος]

You fucking asshole, the reason why harry potter is there is because its such a good fucking book.

 

[JColtrane]

MetalBooger,

It is not really helpful to just state your opinions on a subject. You have to argue for them if there is to be anything constructive gained from the discussion at all.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It also helps when the arguments of your opponent aren't 90% conspiracy theories and "because you've never tried it, you can't understand it". If I were that gullible, I would have joined some religious cult by now. This debate is getting boring as hell. Plus, it takes fucking forever over a message board.

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.

I still haven't heard any arguments against this yet. Sounds pretty logical to me.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

People are born to be leaders, its called charismatic authority, basic political concept. History has shown that hitler was born to be a leader. Everyone who was/is a leader was born to be a leader.

I know an anarchist, he wears alot of black and listens to the doors. No one likes him. By the way, anarchy doesnt work because there are natural hierarchies in every system known to man. Anarchy has a super positifve unrealistic view of human nature, that sadly does not exist in this temporal world, it requires everyone to be super fluffy and happy in order to exist.

IF you go back in history the reason why governments are formed, particularly seen in feudalism, was because small men wanted to seek the protection of more powerful men in the hopes to maintain order. From the Church, to the simple vassal landowner, to the mighty emperor, they are all here to make our society more stable and safer, at least in a temporal sense.



You fucking asshole, the reason why harry potter is there is because its such a good fucking book. How many books of Emma Goldman's would Barnes and NObles sell? The man is good and the man is here to stay. People work hard enough to put bread on the table, they dont need an anarchy making their life even more harder. You need a government, simple, the other option would be a shitty violent iraqi situations.

Last time i checked, Weber said nothing about "charasmatic leaders" being born leaders. Even if they are somehow born to be leaders, it doesn't mean we have to accept them as leaders. Foragers consistently resist attempts by individuals to gain authority over the group. This talk of being born to do something sounds like the old arguments of divine authority. "Oh, well you see, he was just appointed by god, so that explains and justifies it all."

Anarchy doesn't require everyone to be "perfect" all the time. It requires that a substantial enough portion of a society has the will to prevent power seekers from achieving their goals. Forager ethnographies are really helpful in understanding this. but you know everything already and have rejected what i say without serious examinatio, so don't even bother reading Colin Turnbull's The Forest People. You'd probably like the next harry potter book better.

yeah, sure, feudalism was a totally uncoercive party for serfs and women alike. Give me a break. Read some anarchist theory you tool.

you really are quite uninformed. your assumption that the opposite of government is the current situation in iraq proves my point to vihris gari that people are seriously brainwashed and don't even know of, let alone understand alternatives.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

yeah, it's amazing what really hits a nerve with people. who would have known it would be harry fucking potter.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

It also helps when the arguments of your opponent aren't 90% conspiracy theories and "because you've never tried it, you can't understand it". If I were that gullible, I would have joined some religious cult by now. This debate is getting boring as hell. Plus, it takes fucking forever over a message board.



I still haven't heard any arguments against this yet. Sounds pretty logical to me.

I think you're just mad i'm not rolling over. Sorry, but civilization tried to domesticate me but i'm as wild as they come.

Conspiracy theory? and 90% at that? jeez, I think your getting desperate. Simple power dynamics, no conspiracy necessary to explain what's going on.

well, many people would point out that they believe the after life is better then our current life, so a suicide option doesn't seem too unreasonable from various religious oriented perspectives. who knows? but i'm satisfied enough with the one life we know we have to argue for living in our world, just not in the civilized way you think is great.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

While it is indeed frustrating to debate with someone as stubborn as you are, my main issue is that we've been doing this for almost a week, and it's getting tedious. If you want to keep arguing over AIM, I'm fine with that, but having such a massive, intractible debate over the forum is frankly ridiculous.

I suspect that, as with many controversial topics, it's going to end up coming down to personal preference - that you simply would rather live a primitive life, and that I would rather live a civilized one. Your environmental concerns may be legitimate, but this whole thing about civilized people living fake lives is just irritating. Despite what you think, it is possible for someone to live a satisfactory non-primitive life. I find your self-righteous presumptions of having discovered the 'right way to live' not very unlike those of a door-to-door religious missionary.

I really don't mind that there are people who support a primitivist lifestyle. I've pondered it myself, of course. I even made a visit, with some friends of mine, to the Twin Oaks community in Virginia during one of their springtime rituals several years ago. I find the idea of living a simple, nature-oriented life immensely attractive, but certainly not attractive enough for me to throw away every last vestige of humanity and start living like an animal. Humanity is an amazing thing, and I think there's just as much to appreciate about it as there is to appreciate about wilderness. I don't see the point in idolizing one and completely rejecting the other.

At any rate, please IM me if you want to keep arguing over this.