thoughts on primitivism

[534634634265]

I've recently been reading a good deal of material concerning primitivism, post-civilization, and post-oil industry life. While some thoughts are well reasoned and valid, I found myself questioning the "revolutionary", or even "anarchic" value of some of their thinking.
These links might provide some clarity on terms i use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism

Okay, my thoughts/questions. After having read a good bit of Zerzan, i find him somewhat distasteful. He dismisses artistry; painting, drawing, all forms of symbolism, as part of the flawed beginnings of civilization. I can see no reason why cavemen would be incapable of enjoying making art or music, or unable to symbolize the things they saw before them. Also, If the focus is on reconnecting to the wild, then recognize that humans thrived due to our ability to invent and use tools. To dismiss all technology is blind. To equivocate and try to make a distinction between tools and technology only further weakens his platform, in my opinion.

I read through a lot of old zines, Green Anarchy, 5th Estate, etc. There seems to be this thematic fetishization of Nature, with a capital N. Its like a deification of the planet, which is stupid if you reject organized religion as offspring from our flawed civilization. The concept of rewilding, of reconnecting to nature, is just reification of paganism. Living in the woods will not make you meet ancient spirits, or somehow connect with the planet on anything more than a visceral level. I have an immense love for the natural environments i can explore, but that love is the love of someone who enjoys not shitting where we eats and sleeps, not of a worshipper and his/her deity.

I do value the critique of civilization that is an integral part of anarcho-primitivism or green anarchism. I think its important to question the roots of what most radicals think is "the problem". The development of the state, of specialization of tasks, of hierarchy, of social class, these all need to be examined at the roots if we are to eliminate them and prevent their return.

I find the refutation of permaculture to be stupid, and uninsightful. i see it as a natural progression to develop from chasing your food source to maintaining it. most indigenous peoples in the americas developed permaculture with no damage done to their people or society. also, documentation of major events seems like a logically progressive step. again, indigenous peoples may not have developed the hour and minute, but they understood the progression of seasons, and the cyclical nature of the ecosystem they lived with.

I think what i've read of Derrick Jensen is the most logical take on green anarchism i've encountered, and i would recommend him to anyone looking for an intelligent read. He writes on the education system and the development of culture, and its all valid and articulate stuff. He takes a more logical stance on anti-civilization, advocating direct action to restore the environment and prevent further damage. He puts emphasis on taking action in your locale, and focusing on restoring that evironment to its most original state, as opposed to focusing on global reform or change.

what does OI think of green anarchism? what are your thoughts on civilization, the development of permaculture, the rise of the city, etc?

[trivas7]

I enjoy Zerzan's writing as poetry; primitivism strkes me as bathetic form of post-modern nostalgia for a simpler time (a few decades ago Norman Rockwell would have fulfilled the same function).

[Robert]

I can see no reason why cavemen would be incapable of enjoying making art or music, or unable to symbolize the things they saw before them.

They weren't incapable. Au contraire:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:XxxEqVuVx6uGiM:http://www.elamond.com/Graphics/Lascaux2Web.jpg

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/

[danyboy27]

i am not a primitivism, but i kinda liked some aspect of the 50s like music, architecture, well made products, clothing and some of the values that even the simple worker applied, values like respect and honnor, and well done work.

[jake williams]

The primitivist question is actually two possible ones. We can't ignore the basic factual one - there's a notion that industrial civilization is necessarily unsustainable, that the sorts of processes it engages in just can't be carried out with the resources available to us, whether or not we want to.

There's another question though, more of an ethical one, whether or not a person who actually has the choice would prefer to live in a preindustrial society than an industrial society. That's a multifaceted question, but it's a very different question than the proposed technical question that has an absolute, technical answer as to whether or not industrial society is even an option.

[Lynx]

I prefer living in a rural setting with modern conveniences. Clean air and tranquility are desirable qualities for me. Living in a city seems like a nightmare.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

What the nature worshippers forget is that by adapting ecosystems to our benefit is what nature gave to humanity, the most powerful survival trait ever evolved. It is our nature to replace the primitive pre-human world with the human world of society, science and technology.

[butterfly]

We have never controlled the ecosystem, we have managed to use it to advance the humanity, but it's a matter of protection, not controll.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

We have never controlled the ecosystem, we have managed to use it to advance the humanity, but it's a matter of protection, not controll.

Adapted the ecosystem to better benefit humanity. There more specific.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well, first of all, 'Primitivism' just sounds fucking stupid.

It's an insane belief to hold that all mankind should adopt their goals when there are well over 6billion of us now. Seriously, so you go back to sticks and stones. I'll tell you right now I'm not going to, and me and my people are going to make your group forever known as "Our *****es" if it came down to it. Even if an asteroid wipes out asia and the sky has been blackened we would fight over the ramen before we became full primitivists. And you're never getting my noodles.

Anyway, I do think the option should be there for individuals. I like our parks system a lot and think it needs expansion.

Edit very drunk when I wrote this. I'll share my noodle :p

[RGacky3]

i am not a primitivism, but i kinda liked some aspect of the 50s like music, architecture, well made products, clothing and some of the values that even the simple worker applied, values like respect and honnor, and well done work.

I'm not a primitavist, but I do like Burritos.

[534634634265]

@Cult of Abe Lincoln
the concept of green anarchy isn't focused on a return to "sticks and stones" level society, but you wouldn't know that since you clearly didn't read anything i wrote or linked to. its also quite telling that your first evaluation of this is "how can i exploit it?"
typical of most reactionary types, you then qualify with "well i'd allow it, but its not for me" as if your first reaction doesn't clearly enough state your beliefs on people living in a pre-industrial setting.

the focus, as Jammoe points out, is the question of sustainability for industrial society. i find our dependence on non-renewable resources deplorable, and can't forsee any long-term fixes. most of what is offered to replace oil is actually a combination of continued oil exploitation and a shift to more "environmentally friendly" types of energy, which is destined for failure as an answer.
also, i feel like saying we do anything other than exploit the environment for our own gain is to ignore the damage we do on a daily basis. i find it likely that we will return to an early industrial, primarily agrarian way of life. this provides for intelligent land use, as much food as is possible, and taxes our strained ecosystems the least.

i think i could quite comfortably shift to such a lifestyle, but thats a personal call.
i dunno, i'd love more feedback of a relevant nature.(lolpun) what are your opinions of the critique of industrial society? would you be able to handle a shift to more simplistic living, or is technology too important in your life?

[StalinFanboy]

I think primitivism makes for a decent critique of modern life, and one that we should take into account. But I think most primitivists are bunch of nut job idiots. John Zerzan and the rest of the Green Anarchy collective can suck it for being so boring. And for making the term "Green Anarchy" synonymous with primtivism. I'm a Green Anarchist because I believe that we need to fight for a sustainable environment, and I belive that we can use technology to our advantage on this.

[Vanguard1917]

I enjoy Zerzan's writing as poetry

Marx's poetry is far superior:

"Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified."

------------

"The practical creation of an objective world, the fashioning of inorganic nature, is proof that man is a conscious species-being--i.e., a being which treats the species as its own essential being or itself as a species-being. It is true that animals also produce. They build nests and dwelling, like the bee, the beaver, the ant, etc. But they produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from such need; they produce only themselves, while man reproduces the whole of nature; their products belong immediately to their physical bodies, while man freely confronts his own product. Animals produce only according to the standards and needs of the species to which they belong, while man is capable of producing according to the standards of every species and of applying to each object its inherent standard; hence, man also produces in accordance with the laws of beauty.

"It is, therefore, in his fashioning of the objective that man really proves himself to be a species-being. Such production is his active species-life. Through it, nature appears as his work and his reality."


------------

"...modern natural science...with modern industry, has revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man's childish attitude towards nature as well as to other forms of childishness... For the rest, it would be desirable that Bavaria's sluggish peasant economy, the ground on which grow priests and Daumers alike, should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines."

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

@Cult of Abe Lincoln
the concept of green anarchy isn't focused on a return to "sticks and stones" level society, but you wouldn't know that since you clearly didn't read anything i wrote or linked to.

Can we just call them Gardnarchists :0

No, it does sound interesting, really.


its also quite telling that your first evaluation of this is "how can i exploit it?"
typical of most reactionary types, you then qualify with "well i'd allow it, but its not for me" as if your first reaction doesn't clearly enough state your beliefs on people living in a pre-industrial setting.

the focus, as Jammoe points out, is the question of sustainability for industrial society. i find our dependence on non-renewable resources deplorable, and can't forsee any long-term fixes. most of what is offered to replace oil is actually a combination of continued oil exploitation and a shift to more "environmentally friendly" types of energy, which is destined for failure as an answer.How do you know? They may not be as ready-made as oil, but I believe we can go forward towards something other than fossil fuels. Hypothetically, if all these things turn out to be failures, We can liquify coal into oil, make it synthetically, or even go back to steam power.


also, i feel like saying we do anything other than exploit the environment for our own gain is to ignore the damage we do on a daily basis. i find it likely that we will return to an early industrial, primarily agrarian way of life. this provides for intelligent land use, as much food as is possible, and taxes our strained ecosystems the least.Perhaps, but, well, it's fucking cold outside right now. I'm staring out my window and ice is coming down...I'm going to continue raping nature. Also, you seem to ignore the fact that industrialization led to a massive growth in population.


i think i could quite comfortably shift to such a lifestyle, but thats a personal call.
i dunno, i'd love more feedback of a relevant nature.(lolpun) what are your opinions of the critique of industrial society? would you be able to handle a shift to more simplistic living, or is technology too important in your life?Well this is a much different question. I absolutely love backpacking and do believe that I could give it all up for an extended amount of time. Shit, my dream is a modest cabin on a few acres so deep in the woods nobody can find me. And I think everyone has, ironically, wished to live before industrialization, or at least before humans were just cogs in the machine. You know, back when men were men.

Now, the other question is, Could I survive if the other 6b people were also going Primitivist and all technology, for whatever reason, had failed. In which case I have little doubt people would be eating each other by winter. But that's just me, I could be wrong.

In the 100 years or so of first worldness, most people seem to have forgotten a lot. How do you start a fire after it's been raining for a few days? How do you gut and cook -let alone catch- a fish? How do you not die of hypothermia if snow begins to fall overnight? etc etc

BTW anyone ever seen Joe Rogan's stabdup?

"Who built these things?"

"It had to be aliens"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

@Cult of Abe Lincoln
the concept of green anarchy isn't focused on a return to "sticks and stones" level society, but you wouldn't know that since you clearly didn't read anything i wrote or linked to. its also quite telling that your first evaluation of this is "how can i exploit it?"
typical of most reactionary types, you then qualify with "well i'd allow it, but its not for me" as if your first reaction doesn't clearly enough state your beliefs on people living in a pre-industrial setting.

Wait a minute, green anarchy? I thought we were talking about primitivism?


the focus, as Jammoe points out, is the question of sustainability for industrial society. i find our dependence on non-renewable resources deplorable, and can't forsee any long-term fixes. most of what is offered to replace oil is actually a combination of continued oil exploitation and a shift to more "environmentally friendly" types of energy, which is destined for failure as an answer.Why? Most renewables (such as wind, solar, geothermal etc) are proven technologies, and with fuel breeding and reprocessing fissionable fuels will last for centuries, certainly long enough for fusion to become viable.


also, i feel like saying we do anything other than exploit the environment for our own gain is to ignore the damage we do on a daily basis. i find it likely that we will return to an early industrial, primarily agrarian way of life. this provides for intelligent land use, as much food as is possible, and taxes our strained ecosystems the least.Short of a civilisation-destroying natural disaster, that ain't happening. Agrarian societies are fucking shitholes compared to modern industrial societies, and most sensible people realise that.


i think i could quite comfortably shift to such a lifestyle, but thats a personal call.
i dunno, i'd love more feedback of a relevant nature.(lolpun) what are your opinions of the critique of industrial society? would you be able to handle a shift to more simplistic living, or is technology too important in your life?The muck of rural idiocy isn't for me, thanks.

[Lynx]

So where do most people prefer to live, if given the freedom? Are we creatures who prefer urban environments of concrete and neon? Us rural folk are a minority, especially in the wealthy industrialized nations.

[jake williams]

the focus, as Jammoe points out, is the question of sustainability for industrial society.
I'd like to say, since you're quoting me, that I think this is a very important question to ask. If industrial society is not an option, which it's certainly possible it isn't, then we can't have an industrial society. If it is, I think we should have an industrial society. It's a question we should ask, especially as it's become clear that there are certainly problems with industrial society, but as far as I can tell, industrial society is the best option. I certainly have contempt for the Zerzanite position that the problem is "symbolic thought".

[Dagoth Ur]

Primativism is just one more ideology that idealizes a past time as better while ignoring the forward motion of humanity. It is unconscionable to suggest that society should be forcibly reverted to a hunter-gatherer type society (not to mention that huge swaths of the human race would die off due to food shortages). Modern civilization isn't perfect but at least its progressed further than any other.

[Robert]

Shit, my dream is a modest cabin on a few acres so deep in the woods nobody can find me.

Well, Abe, I hope that's the only thing you have in common with Ted Kaczynski.:lol:

But seriously, stay in town. We need rational minds.

[Blackscare]

I fart on primitivism

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well, Abe, I hope that's the only thing you have in common with Ted Kaczynski.:lol:

It is. Physically, I have much more in common with Ted Bundy :lol:


But seriously, stay in town. We need rational minds.

Eh I ship out for basic training in a couple months.

I don't know how this town'll go on without me...

[534634634265]

primitivism = fetishization of hunter-gatherer lifestyle. okay, i think i covered that in my OP.

i see the fetishization of technology to be equally foolish. to say that we can switch to nuclear power, or solar, or hydro? where do your oil-based products come from? the ever-dwindling petroleum stocks? and what happens when we finally deplete those? should we just all wait until then, maybe hold our collective breath and see if that helps?

and to say we can create anything synthetically? the ERoEI of coal-oil and coal-based natural gas is prohibitive, we might as well stick with oil then. nuclear power has a high ERoEI, but the process of refining the uranium is deletrious to all things living, as is the disposal of nuclear waste product.

we don't have any real solutions to the energy problems, and we can't simply expect the science gods to make a miracle solution. science and technology are amazing things, and i would consider them evidence of our evolved intellect, but they aren't cure-alls. i do not support cargo cultism or primitivism. i find more valid the critique green anarchism offers of society and civilization, and our blind faith in both mans ability to "overcome" and technology providing our solutions for us.

also, you needn't "rape the land" to stay warm in cold winter. most good firewood is either already on the ground, or simply needs to be chopped and split into managable pieces. people know how to survive in their natural environments, although those living in urban environments might take more time to re-learn those skills. i didn't create the population boom, nor do i propose a solution to it. as problems go, its scope is beyond me.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

primitivism = fetishization of hunter-gatherer lifestyle. okay, i think i covered that in my OP.

i see the fetishization of technology to be equally foolish. to say that we can switch to nuclear power, or solar, or hydro? where do your oil-based products come from? the ever-dwindling petroleum stocks? and what happens when we finally deplete those? should we just all wait until then, maybe hold our collective breath and see if that helps?

Oil is finite, but we're not going to run out of it tomorrow. Once we stop burning up the stuff for energy, we can use it to make goods which can be recycled, making the oil last longer. And there's nothing stopping us from developing alternatives, of course.


and to say we can create anything synthetically? the ERoEI of coal-oil and coal-based natural gas is prohibitive, we might as well stick with oil then.What makes you so sure that more energy efficient techniques won't be developed?


nuclear power has a high ERoEI, but the process of refining the uranium is deletrious to all things living, as is the disposal of nuclear waste product.The dangers of nuclear power have been overstated. Suffice to say, if we want to keep the power on, nuclear will have to be an option whether the eco-fundies like it or not.


we don't have any real solutions to the energy problems, and we can't simply expect the science gods to make a miracle solution.We do have a number of solutions, you're just ignoring them so you can be a Chicken Little.


science and technology are amazing things, and i would consider them evidence of our evolved intellect, but they aren't cure-alls. i do not support cargo cultism or primitivism. i find more valid the critique green anarchism offers of society and civilization, and our blind faith in both mans ability to "overcome" and technology providing our solutions for us.Considering what science and technology have achieved so far, and considering the record of damn near everything else, your characterisation of trust in science as "blind faith" is dishonest. Sure, it's not perfect, but most of them time it works and it's getting better all the time.


also, you needn't "rape the land" to stay warm in cold winter. most good firewood is either already on the ground, or simply needs to be chopped and split into managable pieces.Only viable in areas with a low population density.