Primitivists? [Archive]

Revy

11th February 2010, 11:15

It would be a little ironic for a primitivist to use the internet, let alone a computer.

A little ironic, yes. But I guess they rationalize it by saying they are using technology to advocate and help ensure its destruction.

I'm as pro-technology as one can get, although I recognize the need to separate the good technology from the bad. I think primitivists are partially correct - certain forms of technology have caused major problems, and in the current mode of social relations people are too cut off from nature and others.

But the solution, getting rid of technology is far too insane to take seriously. They maintain that you can't separate the good technology from the bad. But technologies used in modern warfare are a consequence of the warfare. Technologies polluting the environment are a consequence of the disregard for the environment. Technology is not the problem.

I envision a society with a duality of advanced technology and ecology.

ComradeMan

11th February 2010, 13:47

Do we even have any primmies on here? I've never seen one in the nearly 4 months I've been here.

Also, what are primitivism's goals/tenets/theories? I know absolutely nothing about it other than it abhors technology.

I take it you don't mean Paul Gaugin...! :laugh:

Primitivists wouldn't be using the internet would they? LOL!! They are probably all up in the mountains growing beards and living off small furry animals....! LOL!!! :cool:

For anarcho-primitivists you could try John Zerzan, John Moore and read some of the anthropological work of Levi-Strauss.

Although Green-Anarchism overlaps with primitivism and they have a lot of good ideas, I do find some tendencies within primitivism to be perhaps reactionary too, it's too extreme and unrealistic, we can't turn the clock back to the way we were, surely we should learn what was good before and apply those principles to development.

Ovi

11th February 2010, 22:58

Although Green-Anarchism overlaps with primitivism and they have a lot of good ideas, I do find some tendencies within primitivism to be perhaps reactionary too, it's too extreme and unrealistic, we can't turn the clock back to the way we were, surely we should learn what was good before and apply those principles to development.
Green anarchism is not primitivism. There might be wankers calling for the abolition of technology while calling themselves anarchists, but most green anarchists are not against technology. Many factories/power plants pollute the surroundings so bad, but the costs of this is only supported by the workers and the local residents though their degrading health. Green anarchism is for the right technology that best suits all of us, not only a minority and dispensing the others.

comradshaw

11th February 2010, 23:09

Do we even have any primmies on here? I've never seen one in the nearly 4 months I've been here.

Also, what are primitivism's goals/tenets/theories? I know absolutely nothing about it other than it abhors technology.

I think the main reason most primitivists would avoid this site is because they avoid what they call "The Left," as the primitivists define it. See John Zerzan's musings. Some of the primitivist critique I find relevant, while most is absurd.
I especially am alienated by most primitivist's disdain for anything that even smacks of organization.

ChrisK

11th February 2010, 23:17

A little ironic, yes. But I guess they rationalize it by saying they are using technology to advocate and help ensure its destruction.

I'm as pro-technology as one can get, although I recognize the need to separate the good technology from the bad. I think primitivists are partially correct - certain forms of technology have caused major problems, and in the current mode of social relations people are too cut off from nature and others.

But the solution, getting rid of technology is far too insane to take seriously. They maintain that you can't separate the good technology from the bad. But technologies used in modern warfare are a consequence of the warfare. Technologies polluting the environment are a consequence of the disregard for the environment. Technology is not the problem.

I envision a society with a duality of advanced technology and ecology.

I agree. This like the internal combustion engine need to go and need to be replaced with something sustainable. Other tech like that is definately poor.

IcarusAngel

11th February 2010, 23:24

People who advocate free-markets could be considered primitivists because they want to take society backwards in time, which is why they're always bringing up "medieval iceland" or "early America" and so on. Primitivists want humanity to continue without using technology, but market theorists want people to be able to exclusively use land to oppress us.

kalu

12th February 2010, 01:19

Primitivists seem to buy in big into the "alienation" trope, except they extend it from class society, to the whole of civilization (ever since we started growing crops, basically). They condemn everything from technology to symbolic language as part of our detachment from "nature" (usually done from a very philosophical, almost mystical perspective, although occasionally they'll trot out "empirical facts" like the obvious destruction of the earth, which I think most of us could more easily, and precisely, attribute to capitalist forces and relations of production).

I've met a few anarcho-primitivists, and some were pretty theoretically sophisticated, most of them are definitely not idiots. I got the feeling, however, that quite a few were into the ideology* for pure shock value (it must sound cool to say half the planet should be wiped out, I guess). Zerzan has some interesting writings, he gets some influences from Adorno even (Frankfurt School), but it's almost quasi-mythological stuff. I think I once remember him saying something along the lines of "certain Southern African hunter-gatherers (in the present day) can see Jupiter [or some other planet] with their excellent vision" (gained from a diet of fruits and berries?:lol:). Either way, it's totally unrealistic, and as many have pointed out, often turns into uglier performances of reactionary privilege (I don't think I've ever met a poor person of color who was a primitivist...probably because they're already dealing with crap like environmental racism that primitivists seem content to ignore with their odes to "the wild past"). Primitivism also uncritically reproduces the man/nature binary, essentially reversing the Cartesian urge to dominate nature for an uncritical celebration of "nature" and disgust with everything "human" (symbolic, technological, etc.)

*And I call it that very deliberately, it is an ideology, despite the attempts of some sympathetic "post-lefties" who say that they are past the ideological forms of "the Left" (Marxism, libertarian socialism)...what is primitivism though other than a coherent set of beliefs about humanity's fall from nature? That said, although many primitivists might be post-left, certainly few of them are postmodernists, ie. Zerzan frequently uses "postmodern liberal" as a term of abuse for people like Hakim Bey.

StalinFanboy

12th February 2010, 05:33

It would be a little ironic for a primitivist to use the internet, let alone a computer.
Do you buy things?

ComradeMan

12th February 2010, 09:56

Green anarchism is not primitivism. There might be wankers calling for the abolition of technology while calling themselves anarchists, but most green anarchists are not against technology. Many factories/power plants pollute the surroundings so bad, but the costs of this is only supported by the workers and the local residents though their degrading health. Green anarchism is for the right technology that best suits all of us, not only a minority and dispensing the others.

I know- hence "overlaps", perhaps I didn't convey it clearly. But I do think the line between Green- and Eco-anarchism, anarcho-primitivism leading to weird deep ecology ideas is blurred, it's not always so clear. I support a lot of the Green or Eco-anarchist ideas on the environment but that's where it stops.

Ele'ill

12th February 2010, 20:25

Oh hooray! Another thread just for us!

There ARE Anarcho-Primitivists.

Nolan

12th February 2010, 23:27

Oh hooray! Another thread just for us!

There ARE Anarcho-Primitivists.

You're welcome.

Tablo

13th February 2010, 07:08

Primitivists aren't the worst thing around, but they have confused some people as to what most Anarchist believe in. I'm sure the primmies will be aloud to run around the woods all they want post revolution, but if they try to smash my pc there is going to be some serious issues.

Ele'ill

13th February 2010, 08:52

Tablo

13th February 2010, 08:58

Let's work towards a pre revolution then we'll talk
By working towards "pre-revolution" I assume you are referring to the industrial revolution. Sorry, but I like to have things quickly and efficiently produced so I do not see that happening. When I say revolution I mean a Communist Revolution.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the stance of primitivists as long as they let me keep my technology and live my life the way I want. The second they want to take my technology away is the second they become unanarchist authoritarian pricks.

Revy

13th February 2010, 10:23

I'm not whether all primitivists oppose agriculture.

many do.

But as has often been said in response to this idea, that the entire world should go back to a hunter-gatherer society, if that happened, there would be mass starvation. Agriculture is what feeds the vast majority of people on this planet.

Dimentio

13th February 2010, 12:17

Ele'ill

13th February 2010, 21:52

The reason why primitivists are so despised is that if they take over the progressive movement, they will ruin it because their "ideology" is founded on children's movies. It is telling that most primitivists I know are living or have been living in very privileged conditions. Most of them are urban people of an upper middle class background, who are using primitivism as some form of personal therapy.

After speaking extensively with primitivists and crypto-primitivists for the last years (there have been lots of them around here), both on the web and in real life, my conclusion is that the primitivist is the guy who wants to deprive the workers of central heating and electricity because he likes to watch red flamingos fly or to enjoy the sight of a mighty moose running over the field.

In short, primitivists are hard to debate against because they are evoking an emotional response from people. Thus, they are essentially harmless. That is why primitivists often get to air their opinions by mass-media, because they are seen as benign and harmless to the powers that be.

Which children's movies? David the Gnome?

I do not follow the logic 'hard to debate against because they are evoking an emotional response from people." As opposed to what? How does this make them harmless?

Most of the primitivists I know are homeless travelers. Some are from middle class background as kids some grew up poor. Whether they came from an upper or middle class background means nothing unless you want to say once well off always well off in which case I can say once poor always poor which sort of defeats class struggle.

What if the central heating and electricity are causing horrible problems for the environment?

I don't think that primitivists get lots of air time. I certainly don't think they're viewed as harmless.
It could be argued that many of the actions under the ELF banner were executed by primitivists. As you know ELF is considered a terrorist organization.

Dimentio

13th February 2010, 21:59

It could be argued that many of the actions under the ELF banner were executed by primitivists. As you know ELF is considered a terrorist organization.

Yes, they are considered a terrorist organisation. But they are not really an organisation and neither are they terrorists.

They are not an organisation because they have no central ideology, no internal administration and are consisting of individuals with little or no coordination. In short, the EDL is a brand which doesn't even consist of autonomous units.

Moreover, terrorism are acts which are made to install fear into a population to force through political changes in the target society.

The EDL are not trying to make any political changes with their acts. Neither are they trying to scare people very much. Rather, they are destroying infrastructure, sabotaging facilities or attacking personal property for the sake of ideological purity.

They are vandals.

They even had a youth chapter, called "the frogs". They used to put water inside the boots of personnel working at facilities deemed "haram" by the ELF.

In reality, that organisation seems to be more of a way to get some adrenaline kicks than to actually change the world. The ALF is a bit more political really and at least have goals which are partially understandable and even commendable to some extent.

Ele'ill

13th February 2010, 22:07

Sorry I added a bunch of stuff to my post while you were replying. Now everything is a little jumbled.

Yes, they are considered a terrorist organisation. But they are not really an organisation and neither are they terrorists.

They are not an organisation because they have no central ideology, no internal administration and are consisting of individuals with little or no coordination. In short, the EDL is a brand which doesn't even consist of autonomous units.

I am fully aware of how it works.

Who views them as a terrorist 'network' or 'organization'? The state does. Because they are willing to blow up dams and burn down ski resorts.

Moreover, terrorism are acts which are made to install fear into a population to force through political changes in the target society.

I would say that any violent action against a symbol of a group of people (ski resort, dam, power stations, car dealership) is meant to intimidate and send a clear message. Burning some SUV's isn't going to solve the problem. But it's going to send a message.

The EDL are not trying to make any political changes with their acts. Neither are they trying to scare people very much.

Very much?

The ELF has sprayed 'ELF' 'The elves are watching' or some other call sign at every one of their actions- As does ALF

Dimentio

13th February 2010, 22:36

The Wizards (1970;ish) is an obvious primitivist movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm1dsnTuBkM

Also the Secret of Nimh (1982):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tosHoqLPKNo

Pocahontas has some primitivist traits (1995):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZIsOnQ9u_c

I don't know how it is looking in your country, but I don't think the class background of the primitivist alone is a sufficient basis of criticising primitivism.

The ideology of primitivism is claiming that the world essentially would become a paradise of free love if technology is abandoned. A sixth-grader could understand that if we would return to a hunter-gatherer society today (a state of being where the Earth sustained 10 million people as opposed to 6,7 billion today), hundreds of millions would die.

Primitivism is thus more of a moralistic standpoint than an actual ideology. If the primitivists believe that their worldview is correct, they must be seriously deluded. So I take the uncertain for certain, and claim that most primitivists are really just moralists to some extent who like to have something they could condemn and appear as morally superior at. They are basically reactionaries anyhow how left-wing they are looking.

The only primitivist I have any respect for is the self-described eco-fascist Pentti Linkola, who is the only primitivist who to my understanding has written extensively on how a primitivist society would look like in order to realistically being able to function (a totalitarian one-party state where the use of technology is monopolised by a "genetically superior" elite which would prevent the people from having a high standard of life), and how to reach that state (genocides and wars on a massive scale, especially targeting females, children and those who are sick).

http://www.hs.fi/kuvat/iso_webkuva/1135232409581.jpeg

Pentti Linkola is reprehensible, but at least he is honest with his intentions. Other primitivists, often for some reason hailing from North-West USA and western Canada, just like to talk about the alienation which technology is causing humanity. They are overtly vague and theoretical, either because they A) in secret agree with Linkola's proposed methodologies, or B) they just like the attention.

In short, primitivism is either the most thoroughly reactionary ideology ever envisioned, or a form of intellectual wankery carried out by people who want attention for their "profound revelations".

Ele'ill

14th February 2010, 03:49

Pentti Linkola is reprehensible, but at least he is honest with his intentions. Other primitivists, often for some reason hailing from North-West USA and western Canada, just like to talk about the alienation which technology is causing humanity. They are overtly vague and theoretical, either because they A) in secret agree with Linkola's proposed methodologies, or B) they just like the attention.

In short, primitivism is either the most thoroughly reactionary ideology ever envisioned, or a form of intellectual wankery carried out by people who want attention for their "profound revelations".

I am unaware of primitivism outside of the United States. I know it obviously exists but I cannot critique or uphold any of the ideological beliefs that are circulating. As for the North-West primitivists, who did you have in mind? If you know of a particular person or group that made idiotic claims who were they? Otherwise I can't agree or disagree.

Are radical environmentalists who are also anarchists not considered primitivists although they may agree with certain principles or primitivism? What is the absolute defining feature of a primitivist?

Also David the Gnome which I loved as a kid- although I wouldn't call it primitivist...

LAphcvZaS8I

bcbm

14th February 2010, 04:58

they will ruin it because their "ideology" is founded on children's movies

actually its based in marxism, particularly the writings of jacques camatte who inspired fredy perlman and later zerzan.

Revy

14th February 2010, 06:57

Here's (http://struggle.ws/andrew/primitivism.html) an anarchist critique of primitivism.

Jazzratt

14th February 2010, 09:10

Are radical environmentalists who are also anarchists not considered primitivists although they may agree with certain principles or primitivism? What is the absolute defining feature of a primitivist?

Primitivists advocate the destruction of technology, anyone on the side of humanity does not. Primitivists believe all manner of toss about productive methods being "alienating" (whatever the fuck that means). Radical environmentalists, at least the ones that aren't fucking nutbars, however can (and do) advocate for better, more advanced technology that ultimately uses less resources to produce more.

Then again it's just as correct to point out that primitivists are just mental. Their assumptions, especially about the righteousness of mass deaths that stems from their creepy rhetoric about "overpopulation" especially as regards the third world (replete with genocidal overtones, sneering privelege and contempt for the working class) does seem to be bleeding into the radical environmentalist movement, though. You're right, depressingly, that it can be hard to fit a rizla's thickness of difference between prims and envrios sometimes.

whore

14th February 2010, 10:30

bleh. this whole argument is quite, well, bleh.

the only primitivists i think anyone should be objecting to are the ones who are basically facsists, and/or who want to bring about a "primitivist" society by non-voluntary means

the others, those who want to voluntarily convince everyone to throw away technology, while wrong in their ideas, at least don't want to use involuntary methods of bringing about thier utopia.

me, i have sympathy for the comments about the alienating affects of technology. i also have a slight sympathy for the environmental arguments. i reject though, that primitivists are correct in their solution (whether voluntary, or otherwise). or in the real enemy (they say technology and technological civilisation, i say capitalism, the state, and more generally power).

i disagree with jazzratt as well. just because a erson is against technology, doesn' mean they are against humanity (at least not subjectively, from their perspective). a person can look at marxism. look at the stages of history. and say, "back then, that was when there where no classes", and also say "there is not anyway the capitalists are giving up power", and then come to the conclusion that technology is the problem and wouldn't it be wonderful if we could have a lovely bit of primitive communism. sorta like what we want, except of course we want technology as well.

and, if everyone wanted the same thing, what's the problem? (the primmies who want to use non-voluntary methods are the problem. the otehrs, just deluded fools, not dangerous.)

Dimentio

14th February 2010, 10:44

The problem is, with more primitivists, the less we would be able to actually transcend the current social order. What the primitivist is doing, is to limit himself off the social order.

Moreover, about subjectivity and objectivity. Fascists don't believe that they are evil objectively. They truly believe that people would be better off underneath an elitist totalitarian state and that they are the good guys. What people believe about themselves is seldom what they are.

ComradeMan

14th February 2010, 13:53

I think primitivism ought to be defined here. The lines between the various schools of thought are quite blurred.

If we are talking about a forward looking ecological idea that is to the benefit of human development then it should be encouraged. On the other hand, and as I find with many primitivists, their ideas are often quite reactionary and counter-progressive.

Zanthorus

14th February 2010, 14:52

Here's (http://struggle.ws/andrew/primitivism.html) an anarchist critique of primitivism.

There's another good piece on Primitivism from an anarchist perspective here (http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-primitivism-anti-civilisation-criticism).

Dimentio

14th February 2010, 15:47

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

For those who're more interested in Linkola. Apparently, he's the leading primitivist thinker in Finland.

The most fun thing is that he is probably more moderate than Zerzan. He wants an agrarian society for example, which "just" would reduce the worldwide population ten-fold, instead of a hundred-fold.

bcbm

15th February 2010, 23:16

The most fun thing is that he is probably more moderate than Zerzan. He wants an agrarian society for example, which "just" would reduce the worldwide population ten-fold, instead of a hundred-fold.

except that he wants to use genocide to get there, which pretty much removes him from the "moderate" camp.

Dimentio

15th February 2010, 23:22

except that he wants to use genocide to get there, which pretty much removes him from the "moderate" camp.

Well, primitivism requires genocide, either active or passive, in order to be realised.

bcbm

15th February 2010, 23:26

Well, primitivism requires genocide, either active or passive, in order to be realised.

from an interview with john zerzan in dna india:

People would argue that all this technology and domestication and mastery over nature are necessary to feed an expanding population.

Well, various leftists, including Noam Chomsky, say that too, except that the unnaturally high population is related to the civilisation project. That's when the population started going up. Overpopulation is a symptom more than anything else. Population would start going down if you unplug things like domestication.

But is it really possible to do that today? To unplug technology and the mindset it has created?

Well, it's not like pulling the plug, or let's do this tomorrow. It could not happen that way, as the population is very high. But you could go in that direction, start figuring out the way to undo it, as a conscious project. That would be more appealing than the prospect of all these people in entire blocs who will starve to death when the power goes out, because they don't have any skills, and then there could be food riots and then what? It's not a pretty picture. I think the responsible way is to think through that and start getting equipped, and turning that around. Chomsky and other people call us genocidists. Well, if anybody is genocidist, quite frankly, it's them, because they don't want to have any discussion of things like this. And it's weird that they aren't more concerned than they are about all these millions of people in megalopolises all around the world - they are screwed if there is a crash. Nobody is allowed to think about it or even put it out there.

Ele'ill

16th February 2010, 04:10

from an interview with john zerzan in dna india:

:thumbup1:

And in the event of a crash AND a zombie invasion...

Drace

16th February 2010, 04:18

So what do you guys propose the life expectancy will drop to?

Ele'ill

16th February 2010, 07:21

Also consider that 'life expectancy' is deceiving as hell because many people can be almost artificially kept alive until they are well past their 90-100th birthday with medicines and machines. These people are not coherent or healthy or 'living the life'. Is that worth it? Maybe.

I think we'd have to look at the benefits of all the research and money spent on extending people's lives. If someone is miserable and fairly incoherent at 80 does the technology need to exist to be able to keep them like that until they're 100+ years old? I don't think I have any right to make that call ethically.

Maybe something easier to think about than taking grandpa out back and ending his slobber with a pistol would be the value of keeping an ailing pet alive with all the veterinary technology. Is it ethical to keep a living creature alive past it's natural point of life?

I guess I can see it going a step further where there's billions of dollars spent into research to figure out how to keep people alive until they're 200 years old. (bare with me). They're nearly vegetables but they're alive and they take up a lot of space and money. Their families are happy that mom and dad are still with us. What are the ethics involved here?

Perhaps it seems odd that many leftists openly talk about offing religious 'leaders' and the capitalist elite during the revolution. They also openly admit that when the armed or violent portion of the revolution takes place that people would die (pick a number). There will be sacrifice.

But as soon as the topic of environment, the earth and any extreme alternative to how we're currently living in regards to those first two comes up- and even if it doesn't involve living in caves and tree houses- there can absolutely not be any major sacrifice for the greater good or for the future generations or whatever have you. Why?

Dimentio

18th February 2010, 11:39

Ele'ill

19th February 2010, 01:41

A hunter-gatherer society cannot support more than maybe ten million people world-wide.

I don't know if this is true or false. I don't think I am arguing this point.

A farmer society could support more than so, but would inevitably lead into some form of slave-chattel or feudalist society, as it would be unable to support all of its population except for a small minority which would be needed to attend to administrative duties (nobles and priesthood). The technological base of a society will determine its class character.

What?

Explain.

Dimentio

19th February 2010, 08:06

What?

Explain.

A farming civilisation with no modern technology whatsoever leap a considerable risk of leading into an authoritarian political and economic system as the armed forces necessary to upkeep in order to sustain the population against external threats would suck out the working people and establish a nobility with a caste system, like in most agricultural societies historically.

To not say that an agricultural civilisation would only be able to support 750 million people on a global scale.

How do you mean the world would look like if primitivists take over? And why are you against technology?

Ele'ill

19th February 2010, 14:13

A farming civilisation with no modern technology whatsoever leap a considerable risk of leading into an authoritarian political and economic system as the armed forces necessary to upkeep in order to sustain the population against external threats would suck out the working people and establish a nobility with a caste system, like in most agricultural societies historically.

To not say that an agricultural civilisation would only be able to support 750 million people on a global scale.

How do you mean the world would look like if primitivists take over? And why are you against technology?

I'm not a primitivist but I believe we need some serious (very serious) changes in our world. My pro-primitivist defensive stance isn't behind the ideology word for word but it stands as a challenge to weak attacks based on personal sect agendas. I don't feel that much of the left gives a fuck about the environment to the degree that they should.

I have no idea what the world would look like if ANY group took over and that isn't a fair question. As with any ideology things need to adjust as it begins to play out in real time.

I'm opposed to how technology is being used. I oppose what it's being developed for. I also think our ability to create new technology has surpassed our ability to see the consequences although this has a lot to do with kneejerk capitalism.

Dimentio

19th February 2010, 14:22

I'm not a primitivist but I believe we need some serious (very serious) changes in our world. My pro-primitivist defensive stance isn't behind the ideology word for word but it stands as a challenge to weak attacks based on personal sect agendas. I don't feel that much of the left gives a fuck about the environment to the degree that they should.

I have no idea what the world would look like if ANY group took over and that isn't a fair question. As with any ideology things need to adjust as it begins to play out in real time.

I'm opposed to how technology is being used. I oppose what it's being developed for. I also think our ability to create new technology has surpassed our ability to see the consequences although this has a lot to do with kneejerk capitalism.

We have enough access to solar and wind energy to sustain our world, to not speak about geothermal. Food could be produced using permaculture and hydroponics, with little or no soil usage. You are correct that the environment is a very serious deal. That is exactly why primitivism should be shunned.

The bourgeoisie would love if the progressive movement was hijacked by primitivists, because then there would truly not be any alternatives left.

Ele'ill

19th February 2010, 14:28

The bourgeoisie would love if the progressive movement was hijacked by primitivists, because then there would truly not be any alternatives left.

Yes
And all the potential technology would be used for profit or hidden for profit which technically would be just fine with the primitivists. This is a good thread with decent input against primitivism.

Perhaps I'm not a strict primitivist. I think there should be some level of sacrifice for the planet. I know the left's stance on this is that none is needed. It's capitalism that is causing the problems and I agree to an extent.

There are, unfortunately, a lot of threads especially in OI that turn into an environmentalism bashing party (started by non restricted) and I figured that is where this one was going as well.

Dimentio

19th February 2010, 15:08

Yes
And all the potential technology would be used for profit or hidden for profit which technically would be just fine with the primitivists. This is a good thread with decent input against primitivism.

Perhaps I'm not a strict primitivist. I think there should be some level of sacrifice for the planet. I know the left's stance on this is that none is needed. It's capitalism that is causing the problems and I agree to an extent.

There are, unfortunately, a lot of threads especially in OI that turn into an environmentalism bashing party (started by non restricted) and I figured that is where this one was going as well.

I don't bash environmentalism. I'm a supporter of enlightened environmentalism and I view environmentalism as a cornerstone of how the society of the future should look like. But I think that the technological basis should be so advanced that it could sustain a balance between a high quality of life for all people, and the bio-regeneration capacity of the planet.

I bash primitivism, because primitivism is a threat against environmentalism and all progressive-minded ideologies.

ComradeMan

19th February 2010, 20:59

I don't bash environmentalism. I'm a supporter of enlightened environmentalism and I view environmentalism as a cornerstone of how the society of the future should look like. But I think that the technological basis should be so advanced that it could sustain a balance between a high quality of life for all people, and the bio-regeneration capacity of the planet.

I bash primitivism, because primitivism is a threat against environmentalism and all progressive-minded ideologies.

Well said, exactly my sentiments too.

Ele'ill

19th February 2010, 21:47

Dimentio

20th February 2010, 12:31

Do you think the technology exists today to allow us to maintain our current global lifestyles AND clean shit up to the point where we're actually making progress.

Yes, I believe that. Our lifestyles need to change, but the main responsibility does not rest on the shoulders of the consumers, but on the large corporations which intentionally are producing products with planned obsolence.

Ele'ill

20th February 2010, 13:18

Yes, I believe that. Our lifestyles need to change, but the main responsibility does not rest on the shoulders of the consumers, but on the large corporations which intentionally are producing products with planned obsolence.

The consumers are not a separate group apart from the corporations though. They are the body of workers that make up the corporations as well as the body of 'bosses' or decision makers upstairs deciding how to maximize profit (at the expense of the environment, often times)

It is going to take lifestyle changes. Everything from smaller houses to easier access to recycling centers.

Dimentio

20th February 2010, 14:18

The consumers are not a separate group apart from the corporations though. They are the body of workers that make up the corporations as well as the body of 'bosses' or decision makers upstairs deciding how to maximize profit (at the expense of the environment, often times)

It is going to take lifestyle changes. Everything from smaller houses to easier access to recycling centers.

Yes, but the beginning should always be a redesign of the environment in which the human society is operating, not a changed behaviour of the individual. Individuals mostly correspond to environment anyway.

Ele'ill

20th February 2010, 15:13

Yes, but the beginning should always be a redesign of the environment in which the human society is operating, not a changed behaviour of the individual. Individuals mostly correspond to environment anyway.

There won't be a redesign, enough of a redesign and/or the redesign will be for the wrong purpose.

There is a giant co-mingle recycling dumpster they moved right next to the regular dumpsters that's usually empty because everyone continues to throw recyclables in the trash.

There are energy efficient vehicles now. Nobody gives a fuck they want their gas.

An option sometimes isn't enough of a push in the right direction.

Dimentio

20th February 2010, 15:18

There won't be a redesign, enough of a redesign and/or the redesign will be for the wrong purpose.

There is a giant co-mingle recycling dumpster they moved right next to the regular dumpsters that's usually empty because everyone continues to throw recyclables in the trash.

There are energy efficient vehicles now. Nobody gives a fuck they want their gas.

An option sometimes isn't enough of a push in the right direction.

Take away the regular dumpsters then? Or make biologically acceptable products?

If you design away the opportunity for aberrant behaviour, it won't be released in such a direction.

Ele'ill

20th February 2010, 15:23

Take away the regular dumpsters then? Or make biologically acceptable products?

If you design away the opportunity for aberrant behaviour, it won't be released in such a direction.

Sure but it's still going to be up to the individual to make those decisions and that is going to take a lot of sacrifice which is one of the reasons you won't see many companies going beyond 'going green'. It doesn't make sense for them to change- from a business perspective, rather, from THEIR business perspective.

Dimentio

20th February 2010, 17:33

Sure but it's still going to be up to the individual to make those decisions and that is going to take a lot of sacrifice which is one of the reasons you won't see many companies going beyond 'going green'. It doesn't make sense for them to change- from a business perspective, rather, from THEIR business perspective.

Companies would always strive to maximise their profits. That is impossible and would transform the Earth into one giant plantation. Know about one Swedish economist who wants to exterminate all animal and plant species in the entire world except 60.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

20th February 2010, 17:35

Looks like the problem is with an economic system that rewards short-term profit over long-term sustainability, rather than individuals. Who'da thunk it?

Girl A

20th February 2010, 20:11

I'm opposed to how technology is being used. I oppose what it's being developed for. I also think our ability to create new technology has surpassed our ability to see the consequences although this has a lot to do with kneejerk capitalism.

That's a really important point. However, the abandonment of technology is what makes the primitivist movement so detrimental and counter-revolutionary. They see technology as inherently bad, and fail to see that its development can be very helpful or very harmful to people and the planet.

I think Dimentio said it well - primitivism is itself a threat against environmentalism. It fails to make an analysis of the environmental issue other than 'technology = bad'. We can be both industrious and conscientious of the planet, but the short-term gain and ignorance of long-term results that is one of the reasons capitalism is so disgusting can make that really hard to remember sometimes.

Technology itself is value-neutral...

Comrade Anarchist

21st February 2010, 03:03

Ele'ill

21st February 2010, 09:20

They believe that our technological world is not sustainable. They believed it will collapse and take most of the environment with it. They pretty much want to make us work on farms and do away with all our technological advances. To which i say "Fuck You."(To primitivism believers)

Our world right now isn't sustainable. We do need more farms and people that know how to. I think their seemingly over dramatic approach is coming from the right place but I don't really see a difference between abolishing all technologies that we currently use (as an overwelming majority of it is either uselessly harmful or mismanaged) and starting over (which I don't care what they say, they WOULD begin to use tech again to some degree)

and post revolution where the workers have regained control of their work places and are more intertwined with the communities surrounding the work place- in which you'd have the same things happening which would be the erradication of harmful tech practices or whatever you want to call it and a push for more tech that can not only maintain the current world but start to reverse the affects of our planet's destruction.

Comrade Anarchist

21st February 2010, 15:43

Our world right now isn't sustainable. We do need more farms and people that know how to. I think their seemingly over dramatic approach is coming from the right place but I don't really see a difference between abolishing all technologies that we currently use (as an overwelming majority of it is either uselessly harmful or mismanaged) and starting over (which I don't care what they say, they WOULD begin to use tech again to some degree)

Yes some technology sucks, but if it makes life easier then i think i like it. Our overuse of our natural resources isn't sustainable, which is why we must develop new technology to harness wind and solar more efficiently. We do not need to learn how to farm nor do we need more farmers. What we need to do is to further technology so that scarcity doesn't exist. Instead of creating farms and wasting land we should just clone meat. We need to further advance cloning and biotech so that we can create more food without using land and resources. If something can be created in a lab in half the time and use half the space then why do it so inefficiently through farming.

Ele'ill

21st February 2010, 22:04

Yes some technology sucks, but if it makes life easier then i think i like it. Our overuse of our natural resources isn't sustainable, which is why we must develop new technology to harness wind and solar more efficiently. We do not need to learn how to farm nor do we need more farmers. What we need to do is to further technology so that scarcity doesn't exist. Instead of creating farms and wasting land we should just clone meat. We need to further advance cloning and biotech so that we can create more food without using land and resources. If something can be created in a lab in half the time and use half the space then why do it so inefficiently through farming.

Which would be the same as abandoning much of our current technology and starting to move in the right direction. We currently waste land as it is. I want to be self sufficient and not have to rely on tech for everything.

bcbm

22nd February 2010, 13:11

That's a really important point. However, the abandonment of technology is what makes the primitivist movement so detrimental and counter-revolutionary. They see technology as inherently bad, and fail to see that its development can be very helpful or very harmful to people and the planet.

i don't think primitivism can be viewed as a static ideology; it has as many variations as communism or anarchism. not all primitivists are against all technology, or for its total abandonment. some are, but there are also primitivists who don't wish to throw away everything we've gained over the past 10,000 years but instead chart a new course taking what they believe can be salvaged.

I think Dimentio said it well - primitivism is itself a threat against environmentalism. It fails to make an analysis of the environmental issue other than 'technology = bad'.

this isn't really a fair criticism either. primitivists have been among the first to point them out and detail the problems we face, which is an important part of figuring out how to fix them. while some of their solutions are drastic, i think their sense of urgency serves as a nice wake-up call.

Dimentio

22nd February 2010, 18:15

Ele'ill

22nd February 2010, 18:38

Primitivists are using a very slimy way of defending their views when being accused for wanting to move backwards in time. Instead, they claim they want to move "forward", which literally means nothing. It is impossible to move back-ward in time physically. So of course you move forward.

I defend the view by saying 'you're a fucking idiot - nobody can go backwards in time' and thus the error lays in the original accusation.

Moreover, when they talk about improving technologies, you should all ask for specifications about what they want to improve. Fishing rods, bows, arrows and maybe a little pottery is what they mean by "passive technology".

It would likely be the same technology that much of the left objects to or wants to reform.

Vanguard1917

22nd February 2010, 21:57

Most of them are urban people of an upper middle class background, who are using primitivism as some form of personal therapy.

Not a bad explanation. Environmentalism also has the same social base (upper and middle class and urban).

Dimentio

22nd February 2010, 22:05

I defend the view by saying 'you're a fucking idiot - nobody can go backwards in time' and thus the error lays in the original accusation.

You know very well that the detractors are not using the language in that manner. When they are claiming that the primitivists want to move back in time, they mean it in a technological sense. The most usual way of primitivists to defend their positions when criticised is to distort the use of language into meaning something else. While all ideologies do that to a certain extent, primitivism is abusing language so much that it is turning essentially meaningless as a way to debate their beliefs.

Either that or they start to talk about Native Americans.

Ele'ill

26th February 2010, 07:36

You know very well that the detractors are not using the language in that manner. When they are claiming that the primitivists want to move back in time, they mean it in a technological sense. The most usual way of primitivists to defend their positions when criticised is to distort the use of language into meaning something else. While all ideologies do that to a certain extent, primitivism is abusing language so much that it is turning essentially meaningless as a way to debate their beliefs.

Either that or they start to talk about Native Americans.

I've never had them start to talk about Native Americans before.

I don't understand the rest of your reply as you seem to be arguing with your own version of someone else's theoretical conversation with a certain type of primitivist who I have yet to meet.

Dimentio

26th February 2010, 10:39

I've never had them start to talk about Native Americans before.

I don't understand the rest of your reply as you seem to be arguing with your own version of someone else's theoretical conversation with a certain type of primitivist who I have yet to meet.

Zerzan.

Ele'ill

26th February 2010, 10:59

Zerzan.

Are his views the views of every primitivist?

What do you think of Derrick Jensen?

Dimentio

26th February 2010, 11:07

Are his views the views of every primitivist?

What do you think of Derrick Jensen?

A defaitist and doomsday prophet who preaches that it is inevitable that technological civilisation will fall apart, and obviously he's looking forward to it. Jensen is, to my understanding, a bit more popular than Zerzan (probably because he is using an easier language in his lectures and is more accessible).

I think that the bourgeoisie and the system which they are supported by would be happy if the entire progressive opposition consisted of such people like Jensen. That would certainly serve to limit the amount of opposition to about 10% of the population (much like they are trying to build up a dichotomy between western civilisation and radical islamism, or between western civilisation and nazism).

Ele'ill

26th February 2010, 11:15

Jensen is, to my understanding, a bit more popular than Zerzan (probably because he is using an easier language in his lectures and is more accessible).

I find that Jensen at times will go off about 'ending this civilized empire' but his ultimate goals are still aligned with anarcho-environmental stuff (albeit direct action). From what I've read and heard in his speeches he tends to connect with audiences on a leftist political level first. He is pretty much what I think of when I think Anarcho-Primitivist.

I think that the bourgeoisie and the system which they are supported by would be happy if the entire progressive opposition consisted of such people like Jensen. That would certainly serve to limit the amount of opposition to about 10% of the population (much like they are trying to build up a dichotomy between western civilisation and radical islamism, or between western civilisation and nazism).

What I don't understand is how such a large portion of the left can rant and rave about environmental direct action against dams, ski resorts and other large objects that DO harm our immediate environment and are NOT in favor of the working class yet when a group assembles into or uses (or whatever the fuck you want to call it) a black bloc and destroys property owned by 'rights violators' it's deemed ok.

Dimentio

26th February 2010, 11:23

What I don't understand is how such a large portion of the left can rant and rave about environmental direct action against dams, ski resorts and other large objects that DO harm our immediate environment and are NOT in favor of the working class yet when a group assembles into or uses (or whatever the fuck you want to call it) a black bloc and destroys property owned by 'rights violators' it's deemed ok.

I am not against the abolition of projects which are environmentally devastating. What I am against is ideologies which are politically devastating and anti-progressive.

Ele'ill

26th February 2010, 11:30

Yeah. I think part of the problem here is that some of these figures don't get frequent voice time. I was looking through criticisms of Zerzan and Jensen among others and how they all related to movement and it looks like throughout the years they've flip flopped quite a bit. This isn't necessarily a bad thing though.

I think Jensen has a lot of important things to say and I enjoy reading his stuff from time to time however If a mass die off is going to occur anyway we might as well fight as a movement against it. It's not going to be the population dying off and then the primitivists standing on the sidelines watching. It's going to be complete upheaval with a very good chance of starting all over again (or worse)

If he doesn't think that the left can operate post revolution in a sustainable manner then he is advocating the eradication of our entire species.

Jazzratt

26th February 2010, 13:40

I think Jensen has a lot of important things to say

I think I'm going to be violently ill.

Ele'ill

26th February 2010, 17:57

I think I'm going to be violently ill.

Which, I agree, would be an improvement compared to your regular posting ability. :thumbup1:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th February 2010, 20:03

I think Jensen has a lot of important things to say and I enjoy reading his stuff from time to time however If a mass die off is going to occur anyway we might as well fight as a movement against it.

How can you "fight" against what is "going to occur anyway"?

Admit it; primitivism isn't about fighting or resistance, it's about knuckling under and assuming that the ruling class is either suicidally stupid or omnipotent, which I think is unlikely in light of the Cold War - they came damn close to the edge at times, but they didn't jump.

It's not going to be the population dying off and then the primitivists standing on the sidelines watching. It's going to be complete upheaval with a very good chance of starting all over again (or worse)

But nothing short of a massive die-off will precipitate a hunter-gatherer society. So if you're serious, you'd off be learning survival skills if you aren't already. However, if you're just a dilettante, you'll die along with the rest of us poor sods if what you say is true.

So yeah, "standing on the sidelines" and "complete upheaval" are not incompatible concepts.

If he doesn't think that the left can operate post revolution in a sustainable manner then he is advocating the eradication of our entire species.

And if you can't look after a garden, don't bother learning any gardening - just set the damn thing on fire and watch it burn. :rolleyes:

Dimentio

27th February 2010, 16:30

I think Jensen has a lot of important things to say and I enjoy reading his stuff from time to time however If a mass die off is going to occur anyway we might as well fight as a movement against it. It's not going to be the population dying off and then the primitivists standing on the sidelines watching. It's going to be complete upheaval with a very good chance of starting all over again (or worse)

There you lost me.

Ele'ill

28th February 2010, 00:02

How can you "fight" against what is "going to occur anyway"?

For the same reason we fight against the injustice brought about by capitalism. It's probably going to occur because we're often outmatched but not without an effort. We can still build a movement.

Admit it; primitivism isn't about fighting or resistance, it's about knuckling under and assuming that the ruling class is either suicidally stupid or omnipotent, which I think is unlikely in light of the Cold War - they came damn close to the edge at times, but they didn't jump.

If that's your brand of primitivism.

But nothing short of a massive die-off will precipitate a hunter-gatherer society. So if you're serious, you'd off be learning survival skills if you aren't already. However, if you're just a dilettante, you'll die along with the rest of us poor sods if what you say is true.

My point was that primitivists don't have a second step after shit goes south.

And if you can't look after a garden, don't bother learning any gardening - just set the damn thing on fire and watch it burn. :rolleyes:

Intentional forest fires. I would imagine if the garden is completely fucked you'd have to rip it all up and start over. If it was dry enough you could probably set it on fire depending on your local laws. You might need to obtain a permit of some type.

Dimentio

28th February 2010, 00:06

The question is: Do you want to fight the collapse of civilisation or help it happen?

La ComÃ©die Noire

28th February 2010, 02:10

Has anyone ever noticed some primitivists spew long winded, quasi religious pronouncements about how "doom is at hand"?

bcbm

28th February 2010, 04:44

Has anyone ever noticed some primitivists spew long winded, quasi religious pronouncements about how "doom is at hand"?

ideologues of most sorts do this, just do it in different ways. communists do about the same thing with "the revolution."

Ele'ill

28th February 2010, 06:27

The question is: Do you want to fight the collapse of civilisation or help it happen?

I want the undesirable portions of civilization to collapse, reform, go away etc.. and be replaced with something healthy. Most primitivists and other leftists agree on what these things are.

Dimentio

28th February 2010, 11:00

Give me a list.

black magick hustla

28th February 2010, 11:37

primitivism sometimes has very sophisticated theoretical frameworks. it isnt just a bunch of hippies smoking dope and shrooming in the black metal forests.

some primitivists also do not wish to destroy anything. they rather, are preparing for what they predict is going to happen, the collapse of industrial civilization.

i think wiuthout any sort of meaningful change, industrial civilization is going to collapse. this seems pretty self evident to me.

bear in mind that i think primitivism has more in semblance with marxism than anarchism, as the most effective theorists elaborate on marxist theory of alienation and the productive forces. primitivism also came as a split from marxist groups - cammatte splitted from the bordigists of the PcInt and Zerzan was a jadedd "pro-situ".

Jazzratt

28th February 2010, 13:59

Has anyone ever noticed some primitivists spew long winded, quasi religious pronouncements about how "doom is at hand"?

They do it pretty much the same reason every doomsday prophet has: they cannot think of themselves as anything but the most important generation. If only they can end/see the apocalypse coming they get to feel smug. Extra points if they, like Jensen et al, do nothing but piss on anyone who is trying to improve the lot of humanity.

Dimentio

28th February 2010, 14:40

bear in mind that i think primitivism has more in semblance with marxism than anarchism, as the most effective theorists elaborate on marxist theory of alienation and the productive forces. primitivism also came as a split from marxist groups - cammatte splitted from the bordigists of the PcInt and Zerzan was a jadedd "pro-situ".

Pol Pot also claimed to be a marxist.

La ComÃ©die Noire

28th February 2010, 18:19

ideologues of most sorts do this, just do it in different ways. communists do about the same thing with "the revolution."

That's why I don't like using the phrase "The Revolution" It implies humanity is going to rid itself of all it's woes in "one happy act". I take a "nihilist communist" perspective on this one. We don't know what the conditions of future revolutions will be, all we can really say is they will be enormously complicated.

What I don't like about Primitivists is the highly moralistic attitude some of them have towards society. Society will fall from the sin of pride, just like the great harlot Rome. It's infuriating especially when they try to shroud it in scientific terms:

"To pretend that civilization can exist without destroying its own landbase and the landbases and cultures of others is to be entirely ignorant of history, biology, thermodynamics, morality, and self-preservation."

— Derrick Jensen

Starts off reasonably enough. We have destroyed our environment in the past because human beings do this to live in order to get the energy that runs a high tech society, but the last two stick out like sore thumbs.

Ele'ill

28th February 2010, 22:27

Give me a list.

Of what primitivists and other leftists feel needs to change or be destroyed-

How we view profit over everything else in our world as being ok.
Business destroying our mental and physical environments.
Coal and other nonsustainable energy sources and the manner we go about getting it.
Economic institutions-
WTO etc..
A Lack of democratic process or voice from local communities

Dimentio

28th February 2010, 22:50

Of what primitivists and other leftists feel needs to change or be destroyed-

How we view profit over everything else in our world as being ok.
Business destroying our mental and physical environments.
Coal and other nonsustainable energy sources and the manner we go about getting it.
Economic institutions-
WTO etc..
A Lack of democratic process or voice from local communities

What about railroads? Monorails? Electricity? Hydroponics? Automatisation? Central heating?

Ele'ill

1st March 2010, 01:08

What about railroads? Monorails? Electricity? Hydroponics? Automatisation? Central heating?

There are even more yet as I didn't realize this was a quiz to see if I could list all the technologies or organized practices that are hurting the planet.

It would totally depend on how each of those operates and what their impact was.

black magick hustla

1st March 2010, 01:31

Pol Pot also claimed to be a marxist.

This is absolutely fucking outrageous. To compare a sincere communist militant like camatte, who got disillusioned because may 68 got integrated to state-capitalism, to some murderous gangster is beyond me.

But perhaps, that almost autistic attachment you have to technology prevents you to see beyond your own bankrupt positivism. It prevents you to see the fact that this is the first time of history that we can face possible self-annihilation, either through enviromental disaster or through total war.

Dimentio

1st March 2010, 08:02

This is absolutely fucking outrageous. To compare a sincere communist militant like camatte, who got disillusioned because may 68 got integrated to state-capitalism, to some murderous gangster is beyond me.

But perhaps, that almost autistic attachment you have to technology prevents you to see beyond your own bankrupt positivism. It prevents you to see the fact that this is the first time of history that we can face possible self-annihilation, either through enviromental disaster or through total war.

:lol:

It is not because of technology we are facing the threat of some form of new dark age, but because of an outdated social system which is based around profit and exponential growth.

Yet again, technocracy isn't about robots, singulitarianism or transhumanism (which two I agree are antisocial ideologies). It is about to balance our consumption with the constraints of the environment around us, in short to establish a sustainable society which is balancing human well-being with the well-being and regeneration capacity of the ecosystems.

Our goal, like any other sincere progressive current, is to deliver the blueprint of a society where people have the time to be people without having to struggle for status or survival.

I do not attack a misrepresentation of primitivism - it is the primitivists and their apologists who generally are dodging all questions and trying to keep the discussion on a wholly theoretical level. The next step is usually to try to paint the detractors of primitivists as somewhat sick or alienated.

Attachment to technology is not an issue about preferences. It is an issue about human survival. Most humans are dependent on what technology could produce to a certain extent (vaccines for example). What is frightening me about primitivism is not that they want to abolish plasma screens, but that their proposals would lead to mass deaths of human beings.

It is possible to misuse marxism to really represent any sort of shit there is around. Marx himself saw technology as a liberating force, though not under capitalism. From Marx's statements regarding the inventions of the 19th century, it stands clear that he saw technological development as something progressive.

Revy

1st March 2010, 08:53

La ComÃ©die Noire

1st March 2010, 10:28

This is basically how every primitivist v. progressive argument turns out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GGO9sK2XfY

Ele'ill

1st March 2010, 10:41

This is basically how every primitivist v. progressive argument turns out:

_GGO9sK2XfY

:lol:

Dimentio

1st March 2010, 14:56

What about primitivism as a kind of artistic/philosophical thing? An appreciation of primitive human lifestyles.

I don't think everyone has to live in a technological world. I think primitivist communities can coexist. But obviously, people aren't going to want to abolish technology. So primitivism is nothing to be worried about, I think.

If people want to live in rural communities, where they own cattle and grow crops, they should be perfectly free to do so, as long as they aren't repressing any minority within their community or threatening people outside of their community.

Ele'ill

1st March 2010, 16:07

If people want to live in rural communities, where they own cattle and grow crops, they should be perfectly free to do so, as long as they aren't repressing any minority within their community or threatening people outside of their community.

What if your technology threatens their way of life?

Dimentio

1st March 2010, 16:39

What if your technology threatens their way of life?

1. What do you define as their "way of life"? If they are threatened by some infrastructural project, the project have to compensate them or change its direction. If they are "threatened" because they choose to start using modern technology instead of bows and spears, its their choice.

2. Technology in itself can hardly threaten anyone. It is people and structures consisting mainly of people which could threaten individuals or groups. Technology's only tools.

Its not the gun which is making a murderer kill someone, but rather the intention to kill.

bcbm

1st March 2010, 18:32

What is frightening me about primitivism is not that they want to abolish plasma screens, but that their proposals would lead to mass deaths of human beings.

see zerzan quote however many pages ago. all but the most misanthropic primitivists are against mass death and see primitivism as either a voluntary project, or something that will be pursued after "the collapse."

Dimentio

1st March 2010, 18:48

see zerzan quote however many pages ago. all but the most misanthropic primitivists are against mass death and see primitivism as either a voluntary project, or something that will be pursued after "the collapse."

Even as a voluntary project, it would mean mass deaths. The huge population of the world today cannot be sustained with the same means that even an agricultural society two- or three hundred years ago could sustain its population.

Thus, it would never be utilised as a voluntary project.

The quirk of that ideology though, is that it is passivising progressives and turning away people who could want to join.

bcbm

1st March 2010, 18:54

Even as a voluntary project, it would mean mass deaths. The huge population of the world today cannot be sustained with the same means that even an agricultural society two- or three hundred years ago could sustain its population.

Thus, it would never be utilised as a voluntary project.

i'll just direct you to the zerzan quote a few pages back again. by voluntary project, they mean something to be pursued over a long period of time, not to be taken up tomorrow. the global population can be lowered through means other than mass death.

The quirk of that ideology though, is that it is passivising progressives and turning away people who could want to join.

i've never noticed this.

Dimentio

1st March 2010, 20:19

i'll just direct you to the zerzan quote a few pages back again. by voluntary project, they mean something to be pursued over a long period of time, not to be taken up tomorrow. the global population can be lowered through means other than mass death.

i've never noticed this.

Alright.

I would not delve into whether or not it is desirable to live in a cave, but do you really seriously think that a majority of the population after a successful revolution have put the means of production in their hands would agree to dismantle these means? Do you think they would be roused up by such a message?

bcbm

1st March 2010, 21:20

Dimentio

1st March 2010, 21:22

no, but then, i'm not a primitivist.

Rightety-righty............................................ ..................................

You had me confused there for a while.

black magick hustla

1st March 2010, 23:54

It is not because of technology we are facing the threat of some form of new dark age, but because of an outdated social system which is based around profit and exponential growth.

i am not a primitivist. this is not my argument.

Yet again, technocracy isn't about robots, singulitarianism or transhumanism (which two I agree are antisocial ideologies). It is about to balance our consumption with the constraints of the environment around us, in short to establish a sustainable society which is balancing human well-being with the well-being and regeneration capacity of the ecosystems.

again i dont disagree with this

Our goal, like any other sincere progressive current, is to deliver the blueprint of a society where people have the time to be people without having to struggle for status or survival.

That is called utopian socialism. We don't have blueprints.

I do not attack a misrepresentation of primitivism - it is the primitivists and their apologists who generally are dodging all questions and trying to keep the discussion on a wholly theoretical level. The next step is usually to try to paint the detractors of primitivists as somewhat sick or alienated.
First I am not a primitivist. I am writing from my jobplace where I analyze high energy physics data. I know more about technology and the physics behind it than probably you.

What bothers me is that you say outrageous garbage like comparing a nutcase like Pol Pot to a man that dedicated the better part of his life to communist revolution and who had, although flawed, some sensible reasons to why he arrived to a sort of primitivism.

Attachment to technology is not an issue about preferences. It is an issue about human survival. Most humans are dependent on what technology could produce to a certain extent (vaccines for example). What is frightening me about primitivism is not that they want to abolish plasma screens, but that their proposals would lead to mass deaths of human beings.

Nobody wants to abolish anything, shut the fuck up. Primitivism is an analysis, it is not a political programme.

It is possible to misuse marxism to really represent any sort of shit there is around. Marx himself saw technology as a liberating force, though not under capitalism. From Marx's statements regarding the inventions of the 19th century, it stands clear that he saw technological development as something progressive.
I am not against technology. I am against, however, the ridiculous fetish technology you folks have. Or the ridiculously outdated concept of what you think "science" is.

Dimentio

2nd March 2010, 10:28

What technology fetischism? What outdated view of science? I know Technocracy Incorporated are positivists, but the European technocratic movement is not positivist. We are empiricist, in the widest possible extent of the word. Our goal is to see what is possible through both research and experiments, not to establish "this is possible" by merit of word alone.

bcbm

5th March 2010, 00:03

I would not delve into whether or not it is desirable to live in a cave, but do you really seriously think that a majority of the population after a successful revolution have put the means of production in their hands would agree to dismantle these means? Do you think they would be roused up by such a message?

i've been mulling over this question in my head a bit since i responded before, and the more i think about it, the more i think that a great many workers might like nothing more than to dismantle the means of production, at least as they have existed in this society. i've certainly never worked a job i wouldn't have just as soon burned to the ground and i can't imagine workers who've worked even more miserable positions haven't felt the same.

Dimentio

5th March 2010, 15:37

i've been mulling over this question in my head a bit since i responded before, and the more i think about it, the more i think that a great many workers might like nothing more than to dismantle the means of production, at least as they have existed in this society. i've certainly never worked a job i wouldn't have just as soon burned to the ground and i can't imagine workers who've worked even more miserable positions haven't felt the same.

Such emotions are understandable, but the idea that more technology is meaning more labour is ludicruous. What is creating the need to exploit the population is the growth paradigm of capitalism.

We could abolish most boring, repetive tasks and focus on what is important for society while reducing the work hours.

Ele'ill

5th March 2010, 19:43

Such emotions are understandable, but the idea that more technology is meaning more labour is ludicruous. What is creating the need to exploit the population is the growth paradigm of capitalism.

We could abolish most boring, repetive tasks and focus on what is important for society while reducing the work hours.

How do you know the technology needed to accomplish all of this is going to be sustainable in an environmental sense. We don't currently have the technology needed to sustainably do what we're doing NOW- let alone with an increase in tech responsabilities.

Dimentio

5th March 2010, 19:54

How do you know the technology needed to accomplish all of this is going to be sustainable in an environmental sense. We don't currently have the technology needed to sustainably do what we're doing NOW- let alone with an increase in tech responsabilities.

We do have the technology. For example thermal heating, wind power, tidal power, etc. The reason why there is environmental degradation is not because of technology, but because of a mixture between rampant growth-centered consumerism and the need for states and corporations to cut their costs by always trying to deteriorate environmental standards.

Ele'ill

5th March 2010, 20:12

We do have the technology. For example thermal heating, wind power, tidal power, etc. The reason why there is environmental degradation is not because of technology, but because of a mixture between rampant growth-centered consumerism and the need for states and corporations to cut their costs by always trying to deteriorate environmental standards.

What technologies would you get rid of?

What are some of the negative affects of the tech you'd keep?

Dimentio

5th March 2010, 20:27

What technologies would you get rid of?

What are some of the negative affects of the tech you'd keep?

Reliance on fossil fuels must be phased out during several decades.

We in NET/EOS want to balance between the needs of the people to have a good quality of life and the Earth's re-generation capacity. We believe that permaculture, arcologies and monorails could be a part of the future.

http://en.technocracynet.eu

Ele'ill

5th March 2010, 21:29

Reliance on fossil fuels must be phased out during several decades.

We in NET/EOS want to balance between the needs of the people to have a good quality of life and the Earth's re-generation capacity. We believe that permaculture, arcologies and monorails could be a part of the future.

http://en.technocracynet.eu

I'm going to take a look at that site and my make a thread about it if this thread vanishes.

My only concern is that all these great ideas won't be happening quickly enough.

Bud Struggle

5th March 2010, 23:09

I'm going to take a look at that site and my make a thread about it if this thread vanishes.

My only concern is that all these great ideas won't be happening quickly enough.

Indeed. If it comes about that Communist succeeds--it will be those guys. They (unlike the bring back Stalin or Trotsky from the dead folks,) make a good deal of sense. I think it requires something of an educated world--but considering the Communist alternatives--it at least is possible.

Ele'ill

5th March 2010, 23:27

Indeed. If it comes about that Communist succeeds--it will be those guys. They (unlike the bring back Stalin or Trotsky from the dead folks,) make a good deal of sense. I think it requires something of an educated world--but considering the Communist alternatives--it at least is possible.

Yeah. Communism or not we are sort of all depending on it to keep us alive here in the near future.

"Revolution is the opium of the bored."

Nice but you guys keep me plenty busy with your shite. Thanks for the wishful thinking. :lol:

Dimentio

6th March 2010, 00:06

I'm going to take a look at that site and my make a thread about it if this thread vanishes.

My only concern is that all these great ideas won't be happening quickly enough.

That is a concern to me as well. 2050 or 2070, and the global ecosystems will collapse if nothing is done. The problem is that if we suddenly just change social system (which is unlikely) it is likely that there would be a backlash as severe as if some idiot had tried to create a secular republic in year 1410.

The important thing is to build up a movement and try to make people utilise the change themselves through acquisition of the means of production on behalf of the movement.

Ele'ill

6th March 2010, 13:29

That is a concern to me as well. 2050 or 2070, and the global ecosystems will collapse if nothing is done. The problem is that if we suddenly just change social system (which is unlikely) it is likely that there would be a backlash as severe as if some idiot had tried to create a secular republic in year 1410.

The important thing is to build up a movement and try to make people utilise the change themselves through acquisition of the means of production on behalf of the movement.

Another problem is the notion that building a monorail or a sustainable factory or whatever it might be is acceptable because it's sustainable.

I was recently rereading some texts regarding the global justice struggles of the 90's and in particular the U'wa of Columbia vs the OXY oil corp. What's interesting is that regardless of the immediate environmental impact- groups of people still do not want land that they see as sacred being taken and used for something else. There are no fringe groups in my world and even a smaller group of however many people is enough to care about and listen to. You can say your super tech is best for the greater good but then so can the oil companies of that (and this) era and they would be absolutely right. The issue no longer lays soley on the physical environment.

On that note- I think you technuts and the primitivists that I dont' mind associating with would make a lot of progress thinking and working together.

Dimentio

6th March 2010, 13:57

Another problem is the notion that building a monorail or a sustainable factory or whatever it might be is acceptable because it's sustainable.

I was recently rereading some texts regarding the global justice struggles of the 90's and in particular the U'wa of Columbia vs the OXY oil corp. What's interesting is that regardless of the immediate environmental impact- groups of people still do not want land that they see as sacred being taken and used for something else. There are no fringe groups in my world and even a smaller group of however many people is enough to care about and listen to. You can say your super tech is best for the greater good but then so can the oil companies of that (and this) era and they would be absolutely right. The issue no longer lays soley on the physical environment.

On that note- I think you technuts and the primitivists that I dont' mind associating with would make a lot of progress thinking and working together.

The reason why we don't associate ourselves with the primitivists is pragmatic. Most of the population would reject primitivism immediately due to the fact that most of the population is pro-central heating.

The question to us is: What has the primitivists to offer us.

On a side-note, we are perfectly fine if some groups want to live under pre-modern conditions within the technate, as long as they aren't sabotaging the infrastructure, forcing people to join their communities or hindering people from leaving their communities.

Ele'ill

6th March 2010, 14:39

On a side-note, we are perfectly fine if some groups want to live under pre-modern conditions within the technate, as long as they aren't sabotaging the infrastructure, forcing people to join their communities or hindering people from leaving their communities.

So basically they're allowed to exist so long as they don't do to your world what you did to theirs.

Dimentio

6th March 2010, 20:49

So basically they're allowed to exist so long as they don't do to your world what you did to theirs.

The transition from the society which we have today to the society which we in NET/EOS are trying to help occur is that we will move from a state of being characterised by excessive consumption and waste, to a state of being characterised by minimisation of production (we will only produce things when people actually are demanding it) and maximisation of output (we will make stuff you don't need to change every six months).

Firstly - exactly what have a non-existent civilisation, namely the technate, done to (what I suppose you mean) still existing neolithic societies. I wasn't even speaking about Bushmen or Amazon tribal communities, but about primitivists wanting to live in the forest and do... well what they do there. Of course, neolithic communities may stay neolithic if they want to. The technate would of course do its best to help them reach their potential.

The purpose of the design of the technate is to make it sustainable. It is just not another modernist vision, but a vision of how we could allow humans to live a civilised, dignified life where they could realise their potential, without screwing nature over, so that the ecosystems could regenerate themselves at a better pace than today, to allow future generations a good life-standard.

Technocracy =/= Communism + Robots.

Technocracy = A socially and ecologically sustainable egalitarian society built on an industrial and beyond-level civilisation which is aiming for the highest possible quality of life for the highest possible number of people, for the longest possible span of time.

If you think technology is alienating you, then go on and live in the forest. We in NET/EOS do not want to control your life. What we want though, is to give human beings the opportunity to be able to enjoy life better than what they do today, by giving them equal access to the means of production and lower labour time so they could have more time on their own for being human, hang out with family and friends and do creative things.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

6th March 2010, 21:43

For the same reason we fight against the injustice brought about by capitalism. It's probably going to occur because we're often outmatched but not without an effort. We can still build a movement.

In my experience most communists/anarchists believe that a communist/anarchist society is possible, even if not in their lifetimes, and I'm inclined to agree with them. Primitivists do not believe an egalitarian industrial society is possible, so any action they do, according to their own philosophy and since they live in an industrial society, will be in vain.

If that's your brand of primitivism.

It seems to depend on the primitivist. Some of them seem to actually enjoy playing the role of modern-day Cassandra or apocalyptic prophet. Others are more of the survivalist type.

My point was that primitivists don't have a second step after shit goes south.

Practice hunting with a bow and arrow? Learn how to make a fire in various weather conditions? Get one's hand in with regards to crude iron-working? All these skills and more seem to me to be useful ones to learn in the event of civilisational collapse. Concerns with social justice or activism are pointless if civilisation is going to go down the toilet.

Intentional forest fires. I would imagine if the garden is completely fucked you'd have to rip it all up and start over. If it was dry enough you could probably set it on fire depending on your local laws. You might need to obtain a permit of some type.

In the case of an actual garden, maybe so. But my point was that we don't have planetary management skills, or have them only in the crudest form. We should learn them instead of seeking to steep ourselves in ignorance.

bcbm

7th March 2010, 02:53

Such emotions are understandable, but the idea that more technology is meaning more labour is ludicruous. What is creating the need to exploit the population is the growth paradigm of capitalism.

i didn't say anything about more technology meaning more labor. i said that wanting to destroy the means of your drudgery is an understandable feeling.

We could abolish most boring, repetive tasks and focus on what is important for society while reducing the work hours.

i think we should be critical and willing to destroy everything that capital has built. they have created this world, not us, and a simple shift in work hours and tasks may not be enough. the model for the factory and school is the prison. a self-managed prison would still be denying its inmates their freedom, so why should we assume that the factory may not have similar problems? perhaps there are other, better ways to organize absolutely everything and we shouldn't have any hesitation in trying to seek them out.

Dimentio

7th March 2010, 10:01

i think we should be critical and willing to destroy everything that capital has built. they have created this world, not us, and a simple shift in work hours and tasks may not be enough. the model for the factory and school is the prison. a self-managed prison would still be denying its inmates their freedom, so why should we assume that the factory may not have similar problems? perhaps there are other, better ways to organize absolutely everything and we shouldn't have any hesitation in trying to seek them out.

We intend to automatise away the labour on the factory floor. My question to you is what to be done with power generators, infrastructure, hospitals and so on? Your luddite ideas are potentially very dangerous for the well-being of humans.

bcbm

7th March 2010, 10:40

We intend to automatise away the labour on the factory floor.

perhaps you do, but that doesn't really address the point i was making, namely that nearly everything created in this world has been created to further the needs of the capitalist economy and i think this necessitates examining everything in a critical way and determining if there may not be other, better ways to do and have things.

My question to you is what to be done with power generators, infrastructure, hospitals and so on? Your luddite ideas are potentially very dangerous for the well-being of humans.

its interesting that you interpret the idea that we should be critical of everything capital has built and look for better ways to live on this planet as human beings as "luddite ideas." i'm curious how this is dangerous for the well-being of human beings?

i don't have an answer for your question, because it isn't something i can determine alone and i don't believe there will be any answers until we're all free to address that question as a human community.

Dimentio

7th March 2010, 10:55

perhaps you do, but that doesn't really address the point i was making, namely that nearly everything created in this world has been created to further the needs of the capitalist economy and i think this necessitates examining everything in a critical way and determining if there may not be other, better ways to do and have things.

its interesting that you interpret the idea that we should be critical of everything capital has built and look for better ways to live on this planet as human beings as "luddite ideas." i'm curious how this is dangerous for the well-being of human beings?

i don't have an answer for your question, because it isn't something i can determine alone and i don't believe there will be any answers until we're all free to address that question as a human community.

Of course, the infrastructure which is existent today is created to further the needs of a growth-orientated capitalist economy. One example is Borneo, where three quarters of the island has been replaced with oil palm plantations, destroying thousands of indigenous eco-systems.

I do not contest anything you say, except for the fact that you want to destroy the infrastructure and don't seem to want to replace it with anything. I on my hand, is active in an organisation with several different proposals on how to transform our infrastructure, create sustainable and human-friendly cities, build up foundations for more efficient agriculture, and so on.

I detest the ways in which capitalism has twisted the infrastructure into a destructive monolith which is supporting linear systems where natural systems and human beings are constantly giving place to increased mountains of waste.

What I don't like about your attitude though, is that you seem focused on destruction and not creation. In a post-revolutionary society, the focal point should always be the well-being of humans, which means that the infrastructure has to be altered. Yet, it would necessarily take a long time to alter the existing infrastructure - decades and centuries perhaps - because we don't want any glitches which would temporarily worsen the situation of human beings.

The final vision would look something like this: www.thevenusproject.com

bcbm

7th March 2010, 11:39

you want to destroy the infrastructure and don't seem to want to replace it with anything

this is news to me. i've never said i want to destroy any infrastructure.

What I don't like about your attitude though, is that you seem focused on destruction and not creation.

what i don't like about your attitude is that you seem to be arguing against some strange caricature of my position that doesn't bear any resemblance to what i am actually saying. why is this?

in response to this specific accusation, i'm not sure how the desire to critical examine everything and seek out better alternatives if they exist, which is all i have been suggesting, can be construed as focusing on anything but creation.

In a post-revolutionary society, the focal point should always be the well-being of humans, which means that the infrastructure has to be altered. Yet, it would necessarily take a long time to alter the existing infrastructure - decades and centuries perhaps - because we don't want any glitches which would temporarily worsen the situation of human beings.

yes, my entire argument is focused around the well-being of human beings.

Dimentio

7th March 2010, 11:45

this is news to me. i've never said i want to destroy any infrastructure.

what i don't like about your attitude is that you seem to be arguing against some strange caricature of my position that doesn't bear any resemblance to what i am actually saying. why is this?

in response to this specific accusation, i'm not sure how the desire to critical examine everything and seek out better alternatives if they exist, which is all i have been suggesting, can be construed as focusing on anything but creation.

yes, my entire argument is focused around the well-being of human beings.

This seem increasingly as an argument about whether or not the glass is half-full or half-empty. We have established that you don't want to destroy anything without replacing it with anything better (technology-wise I hope) and you know that I by no mean is content with the current state of infrastructure.

Ele'ill

7th March 2010, 12:39

The transition from the society which we have today to the society which we in NET/EOS are trying to help occur is that we will move from a state of being characterised by excessive consumption and waste, to a state of being characterised by minimisation of production (we will only produce things when people actually are demanding it) and maximisation of output (we will make stuff you don't need to change every six months).

You just married the words 'need' and 'demand' without considering the 'want' portion of it. This is irrelevant as none of it has anything to do with my original point.

Firstly - exactly what have a non-existent civilisation, namely the technate, done to (what I suppose you mean) still existing neolithic societies. I wasn't even speaking about Bushmen or Amazon tribal communities, but about primitivists wanting to live in the forest and do... well what they do there. Of course, neolithic communities may stay neolithic if they want to. The technate would of course do its best to help them reach their potential.

The 'technate' will negatively impact certain people the same way that neoliberal adjustment raids have. Not wanting sacred land used is not wanting land used. An enemy of their enemy isn't their friend.

The purpose of the design of the technate is to make it sustainable. It is just not another modernist vision, but a vision of how we could allow humans to live a civilised, dignified life where they could realise their potential, without screwing nature over, so that the ecosystems could regenerate themselves at a better pace than today, to allow future generations a good life-standard.

I don't believe that massive tech increases and usage will ever be sustainable enough to keep our planet alive let alone start reversing what we've already done. I think it can help but expansion is expansion. I believe we need to take a step backwards and occupy less space. Don't bring up living in caves because that was never a point of discussion. :)

Technocracy =/= Communism + Robots.

I never suggested this.

Technocracy = A socially and ecologically sustainable egalitarian society built on an industrial and beyond-level civilisation which is aiming for the highest possible quality of life for the highest possible number of people, for the longest possible span of time.

That sounds really nice. How will you do this? Be specific. Monorails were mentioned earlier. What are the plans?

If you think technology is alienating you, then go on and live in the forest.

My problem is that technology is encroaching and alienating me WHILE I AM ALREADY LIVING IN THE FOREST.

We in NET/EOS do not want to control your life. What we want though, is to give human beings the opportunity to be able to enjoy life better than what they do today, by giving them equal access to the means of production and lower labour time so they could have more time on their own for being human, hang out with family and friends and do creative things.

I respect you as a poster and a user on this forum, Dimentio, but this last bit sounds like a parody of a 1984esque 'better living through empire' public service announcement. :lol:

Dimentio

7th March 2010, 12:44

We do not want expansion, we want effectivisation. One example is agricultural arcologies, utilising hydroponics to minimise the amount of land used to nurture crops by placing farmland vertically.

You have decided that we are pro-growth and want to use the entire world for production. That is very typical for primmies, using strawmen arguments. I have seen primitivists use the argument: "You are technocrats, you believe in money and economic growth" despite that they already have read our articles about what we really think about these subjects.

As earlier said, if you want to be able to spread honest criticism about us, you should check out what we, The Venus Project and other similar organisations are actually proposing instead of attacking caricatures of that.

If there is a maglev railway on the other side of the mountains, why should it make you feel alienated? How do you even define alienation?

Ele'ill

7th March 2010, 13:00

We do not want expansion, we want effectivisation. One example is agricultural arcologies, utilising hydroponics to minimise the amount of land used to nurture crops by placing farmland vertically.

This doesn't seem offensive to my primitivist beliefs.

You have decided that we are pro-growth and want to use the entire world for production.

I never said anything about the entire world nor did I say anything about production. Building shit usually suggests growth. Show me how to build something new while occupying less space than before it existed.

That is very typical for primmies, using strawmen arguments.

I have seen primitivists use the argument: "You are technocrats, you believe in money and economic growth" despite that they already have read our articles about what we really think about these subjects.

:rolleyes:

As earlier said, if you want to be able to spread honest criticism about us, you should check out what we, The Venus Project and other similar organisations are actually proposing instead of attacking caricatures of that.

Give it a rest. We're discussing and debating. I want YOU to be able to defend your ideas and views in real time.

If there is a maglev railway on the other side of the mountains, why should it make you feel alienated? How do you even define alienation?

The same way that the low income folks feel alienated in their own homes once areas become gentrified.

My question was how will the technorats deal with indigenous rights?

Dimentio

7th March 2010, 13:36

We in NET/EOS intend that the technate should work through a holarchic system composed of autonomous units known as holons. Each holon should try to achieve the goals set by the technate, but is free to find the methods to try to achieve those goals. The sequences only exist in order to advice, monitor and - if necessary - intervene into the holons if they start to move against the goals of the technate (highest quality of life for the largest possible number of people for the longest time possible).

The technate do not concern itself with how people are living their lives or what political or social organisations they have. The technate do not make any laws. The main goal of the technate is to act as a service for the population according to the goals.

Political power is wielded by autonomous communities which are resembling the holons. They are following a basic set of human rights, but are otherwise free to make their own laws and govern themselves. These communities would be fairly small, but would be free to team up with other communities within the framework of a confederate system.

Indigenous tribes would of couse be consisting of such communities, and would essentially decide everything concerning their own lives and well-being as well as their policies. They would decide what level of interaction they want with the technate, like every other community would. They would not be discriminated or treated with any special benefits.

Basically, a community consisting of Native Americans would be given the same rights as a community of retirees, inhabitants of Baton Rogue or gays and lesbians.

Ele'ill

7th March 2010, 13:52

We in NET/EOS intend that the technate should work through a holarchic system composed of autonomous units known as holons. Each holon should try to achieve the goals set by the technate, but is free to find the methods to try to achieve those goals. The sequences only exist in order to advice, monitor and - if necessary - intervene into the holons if they start to move against the goals of the technate (highest quality of life for the largest possible number of people for the longest time possible).

Profit motive wouldn't exist but other motives would and could cause similar problems.

The technate do not concern itself with how people are living their lives or what political or social organisations they have. The technate do not make any laws. The main goal of the technate is to act as a service for the population according to the goals.

Whose goals?

Political power is wielded by autonomous communities which are resembling the holons. They are following a basic set of human rights, but are otherwise free to make their own laws and govern themselves. These communities would be fairly small, but would be free to team up with other communities within the framework of a confederate system.

Indigenous tribes would of couse be consisting of such communities, and would essentially decide everything concerning their own lives and well-being as well as their policies. They would decide what level of interaction they want with the technate, like every other community would. They would not be discriminated or treated with any special benefits.

I think we've discussed the general idea what a technate world would look like and we need to discuss some specifics. I can create a capitalist world that works with my words but the reality is that it doesn't.

Basically, a community consisting of Native Americans would be given the same rights as a community of retirees, inhabitants of Baton Rogue or gays and lesbians.

The impact that technology has on Natives is much different than that of groups that are typically integrated into city or suburban living arrangments.

Dimentio

7th March 2010, 13:58

1. What motives?

2. "Highest possible quality of life for the largest possible number of people for the longest possible span of time"

3. Yes, that is why NET/EOS is working to experiment with our design before we advocate full-scale application.

4. Then isn't it great that the natives could choose what technology they want to implement and what technology they don't want to implement?

Ele'ill

7th March 2010, 14:05

1. What motives?

Demands of a new system using tech. Overly ambitious people. Fame.

2. "Highest possible quality of life for the largest possible number of people for the longest possible span of time"

Yes, it sounds like a 'miss america' speech.

3. Yes, that is why NET/EOS is working to experiment with our design before we advocate full-scale application.

I'm really glad.

4. Then isn't it great that the natives could choose what technology they want to implement and what technology they don't want to implement?

It isn't about what technology they're going to use it's what technology they aren't going to use that is going to affect them anyways.

Dimentio

7th March 2010, 14:13

1. Technology isn't some secretive evil thing which automatically would ruin people's lives. In what ways do technology harm you? Why is central heating, electricity, refridgerators and washing machines such a threat?

2. It is the main goal which is defined by NET/EOS.

3. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

4. You mean like railroads or similar? Some news for you. We do not intend to have a growth-based system, hence there wouldn't be any need to relocate natives or to draw infrastructural lines exactly over their areas. Instead, we could leave them alone. If they want us to provide them with infrastructure, we would do it though.

Bud Struggle

7th March 2010, 14:13

3. Yes, that is why NET/EOS is working to experiment with our design before we advocate full-scale application.

This is why I like these guys! Rather than take over the whole world and then find there's some fatal flaw in the planning--they take the scientific aproach and try things out, see what works and what doesn't and then move ahead.

You can't fault that way of thinking.

Also, this:

Technocracy =/= Communism + Robots.
Is pretty funny. :D

Ele'ill

7th March 2010, 14:49

1. Technology isn't some secretive evil thing which automatically would ruin people's lives.

It CAN automatically ruin people's lives.

In what ways do technology harm you? Why is central heating, electricity, refridgerators and washing machines such a threat?

Are you telling me you can't list numerous ways in which certain technology is currently harmful?

4. You mean like railroads or similar? Some news for you. We do not intend to have a growth-based system,

Why wouldn't demand force growth?

Dimentio

7th March 2010, 15:04

1. Yes, but can and would are different terms.

2. Yes, but what is more harmful than technology is the current, growth-centered socio-economic system.

3. Because we would only produce things when people are allocating energy to have these things produced, in short we would only produce things when people are asking for them. Moreover, since the total production capacity would account for the potential harm done to the environment, people cannot ask to consume more than nature can carry.

Moreover, we would produce thing with the intent that the components wouldn't need to be changed every six months.

The Factor Four theory has clearly proved that it is possible to decrease the production with 50% while increasing the standard of living for the people of Europe with 100%, simply by effectivisation.

Yet, you sound like you are saddened by such ideas, because they would make your ideas for a society where everyone is going to live on a primitive level unnecessary.

Ele'ill

7th March 2010, 16:55

1. Yes, but can and would are different terms.

You'd be rolling the same dice that they are now.

2. Yes, but what is more harmful than technology is the current, growth-centered socio-economic system.

There is still going to be an issue with growth.

3. Because we would only produce things when people are allocating energy to have these things produced, in short we would only produce things when people are asking for them.

How is this any different from what we have now?

Moreover, since the total production capacity would account for the potential harm done to the environment, people cannot ask to consume more than nature can carry.

I might not understand this. It isn't neccessarily the capacity that's harmful.

Moreover, we would produce thing with the intent that the components wouldn't need to be changed every six months.

As an example... Parts for a washing machine made to last rather than made poorly without a thought put into the impact of having factories running 24/7 to produce the parts?

Yet, you sound like you are saddened by such ideas, because they would make your ideas for a society where everyone is going to live on a primitive level unnecessary.

First and final- The only person in this thread that suggested people living on a primitive level has been you.

Dimentio

7th March 2010, 18:08

I am in the process of writing an article, but I could explain the difference. Today, capitalists and marketeers are actively creating products which have a planned obsolence (they would break when the guarantee is leaping out) and they are also running commercials to make people consume as much as possible. We won't try to maximise consumption. On the contrary, we seek to minimise the need for consumption.

That's the difference.

What do you suggets by the way. What does your ideology entail? How would people live their lives under your model?

Ele'ill

8th March 2010, 13:03

www.thevenusproject.com (http://www.thevenusproject.com/)

:lol:

I knew from the URL that it was going to be good. Well done.

Where and how would you get the natural resources needed to construct such projects?

Dimentio

8th March 2010, 13:07

:lol:

I knew from the URL that it was going to be good. Well done.

Where and how would you get the natural resources needed to construct such projects?

Existing infrastructure mostly. What does this do in this thread? Besides, such a transition would probably take decades.

Why did you not quote my earlier post in this thread?

Ele'ill

8th March 2010, 13:12

Existing infrastructure mostly. What does this do in this thread? Besides, such a transition would probably take decades.

Why did you not quote my earlier post in this thread?

The answer to both is because I appreciated the venusproject link as being pretty funny and wanted to post that first. It sort of has to do with primitivist vs technocrat. :)

You also stated you were writing an article so I didn't know if you were going to post that as the main response.

Ele'ill

8th March 2010, 13:14

Existing infrastructure mostly. What does this do in this thread? Besides, such a transition would probably take decades.

Why did you not quote my earlier post in this thread?

Do you feel that the existing infrastructure counts as sustainable resource extraction?

Dimentio

8th March 2010, 13:49

Do you feel that the existing infrastructure counts as sustainable resource extraction?

We should primarily use recycling, yes. The problem is not minerals and stone, but that the current capitalist system is using up very large areals of land for commercial exploitment.

I'm not sure you know what technocracy is.

Ele'ill

8th March 2010, 14:15

We should primarily use recycling, yes. The problem is not minerals and stone, but that the current capitalist system is using up very large areals of land for commercial exploitment.

I'm not sure you know what technocracy is.

I do.

The original intent of this thread was to discuss primitivism and it led to discussing why technology should be increased which I partially disagreed with.

Dimentio

8th March 2010, 14:36

I do.

The original intent of this thread was to discuss primitivism and it led to discussing why technology should be increased which I partially disagreed with.

Technologies should be developed, but also applied in a better fashion than today. What I support is not mindless development of technology for the sake of development, but the rational use of technology to improve the quality of life for all human beings, everywhere.

Ele'ill

11th March 2010, 12:41

Technologies should be developed, but also applied in a better fashion than today. What I support is not mindless development of technology for the sake of development, but the rational use of technology to improve the quality of life for all human beings, everywhere.

Every society's mission statement is to 'improve the quality of life for all human beings, everywhere.' This usually doesn't happen.

If that's your goal then go for it and I guess as a half-primitivist I causiously support the experimentation and appreciate the effort as I'm convinced we're on the same team.

Perhaps that use of technology will minimize it's existance in the world and thus prove the technocrats to be primitivists themselves.