Treehugger?

[noble brown]

i'm curious... are you a treehugger.

guess i should define treehugger huh? do you think that we should do everything possible to save the world around it? do you think its also a component of communism, intrinsic.

its not only a very self preserving thing to do, logically, but its also the noble thing to do. i dont see my life as any more valuable then an ants. there is no value between life. value is a figment of your capitalist brainwashing thats been going on since you popped out.

[Aeval]

Do you really not see your life as any more valuable than an ant's? What if someone were to say they'll kill an ant or a human, but you get to choose? Or an ant or a rabbit? Surely if no life is more valuable to you then you wouldn't be able to choose, so I think you're being a little over the top.

I think we should try to preserve the world around us because this is where we live, if we trash the place then we're just going to spite ourselves. And I don't see it as noble to not want to make things difficult for yourself and everyone else, it's just sensible.

[Crimson Commissar]

In my opinion, the value of life is measured by how much that species contributes to the world. A human contributes much more to it's community and the world as a whole than a tiny, insignificant ant.

And no, I am not a "treehugger". Preserve the environment if it's necessary, of course. But I don't see it as a priority to be honest.

[Quail]

I think it's important to protect the environment since we live in the environment, but I don't think that enough will be done in a capitalist system. I wouldn't call myself a "tree-hugger" because I associate that word with people who are kind of spiritual about their environmentalism, which I am definitely not.

I do see humans as being more important than other animals to a human being, because I think the preservation of our own species should come before that of others who probably don't understand that they're under threat.

[noble brown]

okay, of course as an individual actor within a enviroment, my personal mandate will be to secure my own survival. the ant will and so should i. i may think my life is more valuable but only to me. the ant will certainly think its life more important then mine, assuming it has the capacity to think in those terms. so its all subjective. you would probably think that your life, under most circumstances, more valuable then mine. step it up a level and if we try to understand the world in terms of "value" then humans are more valuable then ants and everything else. can any one see where this leads and where this worldview stems from?

[Ele'ill]

Do you really not see your life as any more valuable than an ant's? What if someone were to say they'll kill an ant or a human, but you get to choose? Or an ant or a rabbit? Surely if no life is more valuable to you then you wouldn't be able to choose, so I think you're being a little over the top.


I think if I were an ant I would suggest saving the ant. This is nothing more than an egocentric position.

What about a human life or an entire species?

[Ele'ill]

I don't see the environment as being the most important struggle.

I don't see child labor or imperialist wars as being the most important struggle.

I think that organizing and agitating against capitalism and for its abolishment is the most important struggle.


You can save a forest- but for how long?

Abolish the system that allows and encourages the destruction of the natural world and the destruction of community.

[Crimson Commissar]

I think if I were an ant I would suggest saving the ant. This is nothing more than an egocentric position.

What about a human life or an entire species?
Depends what species it is, and how valuable they are to the survival of humanity and the world.

[Ele'ill]

Maybe the issue is that we are the destroyers AND the one making a decision.

[Crimson Commissar]

Maybe the issue is that we are the destroyers AND the one making a decision.
The survival and well-being of humanity and our habitat is the priority. If we need to destroy a few other animals to make our lives better, then we should do it. For now, the environment must be preserved, merely because it is benefitial to us.

[ZeroNowhere]

okay, of course as an individual actor within a enviroment, my personal mandate will be to secure my own survival. the ant will and so should i. i may think my life is more valuable but only to me. the ant will certainly think its life more important then mine, assuming it has the capacity to think in those terms. so its all subjective.
You're waffling. To say that a moral judgement is 'subjective' can be nothing more than a statement about how language is used, and the fact that it occupies a different facet of the language than, say, propositions. Saying that a thing is objectively more valuable than something else is neither true nor false, but rather nonsense, and therefore so is the opposite if used as a proposition. Ultimately, however, the whole 'subjective-objective' division as regards morality is generally based on deeper linguistic confusions, which underlie for example debates on moral realism. Similarly, in fact, it is also a moral judgement, just as 'subjective' or 'objective' as the rest, that the ant is of equal value as you.

So, according to you, it is your moral view that an ant is both as valuable and less valuable than you; unless, of course, you're just using the word 'value' differently to how it was used by other posters. They were using it in a moral sense, and as such equating it with the sense of value in, "I value your friendship," is inapposite. Ultimately, if you hold that the ant's life is of equal value to yours on a moral level, then it would be morally inconsistent to hold your life as being of greater value, and nature cannot give you a mandate for anything, inasmuch as one may not derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.

Ultimately, if we're talking about morality, then it's senseless to talk about your life being more valuable 'only to yourself'; morality deals with universal imperatives. If killing a human is wrong, but killing a microscopic nematode is not, then it would be wrong to kill a human rather than a nematode if given the choice; what the nematode may or may not think on the matter is irrelevant, just as Obama's opinion does not make the Middle Eastern Wars alright. Similarly, one may not derive any moral judgments from the fact, if it indeed is a fact, that all creatures seek to preserve their lives above those of others, and 'value' their lives above those of others in this sense. Believe me, Ayn Rand certainly tried. Ultimately, however, 'value' in the sense in which it is used elsewhere in this thread has to do not with what creatures do, in fact, do, but rather with what they ought to do.


you would probably think that your life, under most circumstances, more valuable then mine.Not in ethical terms; I'm no egoist.


step it up a level and if we try to understand the world in terms of "value" then humans are more valuable then ants and everything else. can any one see where this leads and where this worldview stems from?Capitalism doesn't necessarily treat humans much better than ants, and often treats them a fair bit worse than dogs. However, I am indeed curious as to what it leads to. Just to remind you, the standard pseudo-pomo line is that it leads to colonialism and imperialism.


Maybe the issue is that we are the destroyers AND the one making a decision.It may have been the issue if not for the fact that the decision is actually just made on the toss of a coin.

[Ele'ill]

And if it is at some point not beneficial to us should we destroy every species on the planet to get what we want- not what we need?

[Crimson Commissar]

And if it is at some point not beneficial to us should we destroy every species on the planet to get what we want- not what we need?
I honestly doubt it'll get to the point where EVERY other species will be wiped out. But if somehow destroying other animals will help make our lives better? Sure, do it. But I personally believe that it's better to keep them alive and use them to our advantage. Like how we use them on farms and for food.

[Decolonize The Left]

i'm curious... are you a treehugger.

No, I'm not.


guess i should define treehugger huh? do you think that we should do everything possible to save the world around it? do you think its also a component of communism, intrinsic.

I think this is a moral question the answer to which will depend upon your normative opinions. For me personally I don't think I should do everything possible to save the world, as this would require me to cease to function in our society. On the other hand, I do what I think is reasonable of me. I try not to waste, try to recycle and reuse. I also actively oppose an economic system which is constructed to utilize what we call 'nature' as a series of infinite and finite resources to be exploited. Just as I oppose the exploitation of human beings, I oppose the exploitation of the natural world.

We are humans though. We are animals who must use what's around us to survive and reproduce. We do so through an evolved form of language and the highly specialized use of tools. This requires us to use natural resources for our own benefit. The question is not an absolute one (should we use resources or no), the question is a relative one - how should we use the resources we find and create.


its not only a very self preserving thing to do, logically, but its also the noble thing to do. i dont see my life as any more valuable then an ants. there is no value between life. value is a figment of your capitalist brainwashing thats been going on since you popped out.

There is nothing noble about it in any sense other than your personal sense of nobility. You may not see your life as more valuable than an ant, but your mom does. Your friends do. So how are you more right then them? Can you honestly and nobly tell them that they ought not value you as they do? Is this not extremely presumptuous and insulting?

Value is not a figment of our capitalist brainwashing. Value has existed long before capitalism and is a necessary and unavoidable part of the human condition. As Nietzsche famously and rightfully argued, it's not one value or another which is important, it's how you create your own values that matters.

- August

[noble brown]

I think this is a moral question the answer to which will depend upon your normative opinions. For me personally I don't think I should do everything possible to save the world, as this would require me to cease to function in our society. On the other hand, I do what I think is reasonable of me.

i considered sayin "do everything reasonably possible" but i was trying to avoid lokking at it subjectivitly. i think we speak too much in purely relative terms. this handicaps us into really not being able to see the whole picture. i think that its only natural to speak in relative terms, actually its something that you wouldnt want to get rid of. if were to stop speaking in relative terms then that would mean that the individual has ceased to exist. that would be sad, from my point of view. likewise, its sad that the oppisite isnt seen. we are so full of ourselves that a world view never sees the big picture, the one where humanity, shit, the planet we call ours, is just minor lil stroke on a masterpiece. whats the point? biologically, i want to see my seed flourish, i think its very important that we start to see things from an angle that is much larger than us. our continued existence requires that we start to balance ourselves with all that other, much bigger shit going on out there. otherwise itll just move us right long in the rock strata. and how can we possibly find a balance when we cant see past our own noses. im not speaking of altruism just good ole reality and faithful logic.



the question is a relative one - how should we use the resources we find and create.

i think more acturately it should be how much. becuase my whole point is that its not all ours. just cuase its there and we can use it doesnt make it mine. it doesnt give me absolute rights. fuck what locke said. of course this is more acurately an abrahamic point of view, and we all know how successful the abrahamic religons are



There is nothing noble about it in any sense other than your personal sense of nobility. .

of course, the whole noble thing was personal. i dont expect everyone to act nobily, that would just be akward.


Value is not a figment of our capitalist brainwashing.

true i think i was just not being very clear there. my bad. i think i wouldve been referring to the way that value has become our sole focus. we are consumed by value. everthing has a value of some sort. this is indeed a direct result of capitalist propoganda generally reffered to as the ad industry. i love manufacturing consent.

[WeAreReborn]

In my opinion, the value of life is measured by how much that species contributes to the world. A human contributes much more to it's community and the world as a whole than a tiny, insignificant ant.

And no, I am not a "treehugger". Preserve the environment if it's necessary, of course. But I don't see it as a priority to be honest.
Horrible way to put it, though I am not a "treehugger" I do wish to protect the enviroment and still have industry but the contribution is absolutely nonsense. Humans are destroying each other and the world how is that a contribution? We have raped the land, burnt down forests, wiped out species of animals how is that a contribution? Sure I think humans lives are more valuable but do not for one second think humans help the world.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For our own sake, we need to keep our planetary habitat viable. Fossil fuels can and should be replaced with a variety of alternatives including biogas, solar, hydro, and nuclear fission (which would also make hydrogen more economical as a fuel).

There are tons of things we could do differently as a civilisation, that would do a lot of good without harming quality of life and in some cases even improving it. Besides, I like trees and don't like the idea of them being cut down unnecessarily.

[noble brown]

morality deals with universal imperatives. .


isnt that kantian? morality doesnt deal exclusively w/ universal imperatives. thats just one particular way of looking at morality. and i dont agree that its silly to speak of my life only being valuable to me. its the truth. were speaking of two different values here. the first is on the interpersonal level and is applied everyday. the second is a more philosophical sense. where we are no longer looking at it from a personal perch but from the view of the whole (humanity usually). we see all bees the same all ant s the same. all are equal to eachother. 1 ant is any one ant. when facin a moral dilemma we pull out the good ole calculus and figure it all out mathmatically. but its all off balance because its not practical. i was saying value in the more practical sense, the how i personally value things. in the first part i was using value in a much more philosophical sense. but i was not trying to derive any "oughts" from it. in the second seemingly contradictory statement i was speakin from a practical interpersonal sense.


the standard pseudo-pomo line is that it leads to colonialism and imperialism..

sounds like a logical progression to me.



It may have been the issue if not for the fact that the decision is actually just made on the toss of a coin.

what decision?

oh yeah,



and nature cannot give you a mandate for anything, inasmuch as one may not derive an 'ought' from an 'is'..

actually it can and it does. that is if you chose to take the perspective that you ought to keep on living. so assuming that prerequisite, nature mandates that you fuckin breathe, otherwise you have failed your "ought". so if you ought to keep on living then then you ought to breathe. and why is that? biology. and biology is nature. maybe this isnt exactly an "ought" in the ethical term but yuo still ought to breathe. im sure i could link the two oughts to an ethical sense but im kinda tired from working a shitty ass job just so i can live, which im pretty sure i ought to do, an since they own me i gues i ought to go to sleep so i can show up all bushytailed and shit.

[Amphictyonis]

i'm curious... are you a treehugger.

guess i should define treehugger huh?

ElJFYwRtrH4

Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

[Blackscare]

i'm curious... are you a treehugger.

guess i should define treehugger huh? do you think that we should do everything possible to save the world around it? do you think its also a component of communism, intrinsic.

its not only a very self preserving thing to do, logically, but its also the noble thing to do. i dont see my life as any more valuable then an ants. there is no value between life. value is a figment of your capitalist brainwashing thats been going on since you popped out.


First of all, this idea of a "noble act" is a totally romantic and impractical way of looking at things. My actions and beliefs follow from logical lines of thought, not emotional urges etc.

Second, are you fucking nuts? Dude I'll fucking genocide all the ants in my yard if it was that or so much as stubbing a toe. I mean, like an orangutan or something I might do something moderately selfless to save physically, but a single ant? Don't say things that you know are hyperbole for no reason, because not even knowing you I am goddamn sure you wouldn't jump in front of a bus to make it swerve out of the way of an ant. Fuck, make that five ants. You're crazy.



Also, value is NOT a figment of "my" capitalist brainwashing (you word that as if you're somehow more enlightened than anyone else because you make vague and entirely false statements about your own personal levels of altruism on an internet board). Case in point; you're post has little value while my post has, scientifically and objectively, over 9,000 value.


On a less dickish note, I'm not of the mindset that the environment is some monolithic, perfectly synchronized entity whose balance we can disturb and somehow "restore" to it's former... erm, form. Slavoj Zizek has interesting things to say along those lines. We must approach the issue of the environment as an ever-evolving thing that we can and must direct, to some extent.

[Sir Comradical]

No because I don't love the environment. I only care about the environment with regards to how it affects humanity. Other than that, nature is there for us to exploit in a renewable manner. Nature isn't the garden of eden, it's a harsh place which we've managed to dominate and control. This is good, this is progress. Literally hugging trees is lunacy.

[Aeval]

I think if I were an ant I would suggest saving the ant. This is nothing more than an egocentric position.



Exactly, but you are not an ant, you're a person, and so, presumably, is the OP who said:


i dont see my life as any more valuable then an ants.

which I was objecting to, because I don't for one second believe them that they don't regard their own life, or the life of another member of their specie, or for that matter the life of another similar specie, as more valuable than an ants. Because, as you quite rightly pointed out, an ant would regard it's own life to be more valuable than yours (were it able to comprehend such things) :)

[Crimson Commissar]

Horrible way to put it, though I am not a "treehugger" I do wish to protect the enviroment and still have industry but the contribution is absolutely nonsense. Humans are destroying each other and the world how is that a contribution? We have raped the land, burnt down forests, wiped out species of animals how is that a contribution? Sure I think humans lives are more valuable but do not for one second think humans help the world.
We are the only species to have evolved to such an advanced point. All others have remained as dumb and incapable of comprehending the world around them. We must do what is best for our species as a whole. Obviously, capitalism is not the best for us. The many variants of leftism would be much more benefitial to us. But overall we have contributed much, much more to this world than any other species has. If other animals were capable of actually having some form of real intelligence then I'd be happy to accept them as our comrades. However, they haven't, so for now they must be considered as the slaves of humanity, and be used in a way that would benefit our species the most.

Besides, other animals have been proven to live in a much more harsh and unforgiving environment than capitalism could ever even hope to create. Less-intelligent animals do not live in beautiful socialist utopias. They live in a brutal, chaotic anarchy (In the BAD way, not good) in which only the strongest of their species survives. Even the worst of the political ideologies that we humans have created are preferable to what other animals have developed.

[Ovi]

I think that with intelligence comes power and with power comes responsibility. If we consider everything to be ours for the taking and the entire world something free for us to exploit, then we're no better than the capitalists that we're fighting against.

[Vanguard1917]

ElJFYwRtrH4

Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

Wow that was pretty disturbing. Would make great viewing for Halloween for the kids.

Earth First are, of course, the group which supported malaria and Aids on eco-grounds, and which argued that the lives of grizzly bears are more important than those of starving Ethiopians. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1780813&postcount=27)

Scary people indeed.

[The Douche]

Treehugger? Shit, most people on here would probably consider me a primitivist.

[noble brown]

well first off, i already stated that the whole noble thing was a personal view. secondly are yu damaged?! you actually believe that all your beliefs and actions are logical and never emotional??!!

and i dont think i ever said that i would jump in front of a bus for an ant. youre dramatizing what i said and maybe didnt read any more of this post.

this is exactly what im talkin about. just cause i say my life has no more value (intrinsic) than an ants than that must mean im gonna jump in front of a bus. what im sayin is probably only slightly less crazy (to you) though. we do not have any intrinsic right to just indiscriminitely destroy other shit just cause we can and there is a reason for it. a very logical one. genocide all the fucking ants on the planet and see what happens. tell me you wouldnt change the eco-system. and its not a perfectly sychronized system, there are a lot of "shock absorbers" if you will. but to say that we're not capable of damaging... damaging it how? for human life? hell yeah we can. but on another level if we do destroy life on earth or human life then nature will just keep on goin on, just as efficently as before, just w/out humans. but thats a moot point because isn't the whole point to preserve human life? but there is a important balance withyin the biosphere. and if we continue to ignore this and dont come up w/ a more inclusive normative way of behaving then we are done for. will the earth care? fuck no, but i sure as hell would and im sure you would to. why is there so much resistance to the idea that we must get in line w/ nature and not attempt to manage it from above. :cursing:

[Crimson Commissar]

why is there so much resistance to the idea that we must get in line w/ nature and not attempt to manage it from above.
We are not slaves to nature. Nature is a slave to us. We must manipulate it, control it, use it to our advantage, to make our lives better and ensure the absolute supremacy of humanity. We have the power to create a utopia on Earth, and even beyond Earth. If we bow before lesser beings, unintelligent animals and plants who's only purpose is to provide us with essential nutrients, then we will ruin our species.

[ZeroNowhere]

well first off, i already stated that the whole noble thing was a personal view. secondly are yu damaged?! you actually believe that all your beliefs and actions are logical and never emotional??!!

and i dont think i ever said that i would jump in front of a bus for an ant. youre dramatizing what i said and maybe didnt read any more of this post.

this is exactly what im talkin about. just cause i say my life has no more value (intrinsic) than an ants than that must mean im gonna jump in front of a bus.
If the life of one human is as valuable as that of one ant, then, if there happened to be two ants threatened by a bus, you would therefore be obligated to throw yourself in front of the bus to save them if such were possible.


what im sayin is probably only slightly less crazy (to you) though. we do not have any intrinsic right to just indiscriminitely destroy other shit just cause we can and there is a reason for it. a very logical one. genocide all the fucking ants on the planet and see what happens. tell me you wouldnt change the eco-system. and its not a perfectly sychronized system, there are a lot of "shock absorbers" if you will. but to say that we're not capable of damaging... damaging it how? for human life? hell yeah we can.So, essentially, we shouldn't kill off all ants because if it would have a negative effect on humanity? On the other hand, it would follow from this that if it would not in fact have such effect, and this was known, their extinction would be quite alright. Of course, one could argue that we can't know for sure and are better safe than sorry, but here the value of an ant's life is completely irrelevant, and all that is is that of humans; that's not particularly tree-loving.


but on another level if we do destroy life on earth or human life then nature will just keep on goin on, just as efficently as before, just w/out humans. but thats a moot point because isn't the whole point to preserve human life?Tsunamis do not do so. They are natural. Hence 'getting in line with nature and not attempting to manage it from above' as a principle would entail allowing tsunamis if they could be prevented without any risk through establishing control over nature, and therefore comes into conflict here with preservation of human life.


If we consider everything to be ours for the taking and the entire world something free for us to exploit, then we're no better than the capitalists that we're fighting against.Capitalists can be pretty moral chaps, capital is neither moral nor a chap. Engels, for example, was a capitalist, and a pretty decent person. On the other hand, what we're fighting against is capital, in order to establish conscious human control over human production, rather than capitalism's 'rule of things'. As regards capitalists considering everything to be theirs for the taking, the problem is not that they have moral qualms about taking things, it's rather that they are ruled by the profit motive, and therefore take things without any concern for harmful effects, safety risks, inefficiency and so on. One may well be able to take everything while choosing not to take some things due to possible negative effects, rather than moral qualms, and using those which one does optimally.

[mikelepore]

Why would anyone here use a Rush Limbaugh term like "tree hugger"? That loaded phrase was invented to promote the idea that it's insane to be concerned about conservation of natural resources, and that the corporations have every right to use their private property however they see fit, for example, to raze the forests to make room for more department store parking lots.

[Ele'ill]

Exactly, but you are not an ant, you're a person, and so, presumably, is the OP who said:

Ultimately irrelevant- no pun intended. :rolleyes:

I was saying that we're going to view our needs and our individual lives as superior to anything else- if the other species on this planet were just as we are in intelligence and what have you- it would create some serious issues with logic-

So what you end up with is a system where we're basing worth on our own characteristics as a species.



It's not an argument that I'm making so much as it is a critique-

Having been on this forum for a while- I think most of the people that come across as being 'anti environment' are actually closer akin to primitivism, eco anarchism and post-civ in regards to urgency and level of care towards the natural world- the difference is in the means or route to take and it is a BIG difference.

I think when the environmental arguments surface on this forum- it would be better to first come to an agreement on what needs to go- on what industries should eventually be abolished and I think both camps would agree that most of our resource extraction industries would be abolished and replaced with clean ones-

Most of what the technocrats are proposing- at the end of the day- is the same as what post-civ'ers are proposing-

Primitivism is different in that even the softer advocates of it- that want no mass exterminations of humans or industry- want a hunter gather society-

The problem is that they can't do that right now- it simply isn't feasible.

What I would suggest to them is to get on board with say- tecnocracy- which is one of the only environmental 'movements' that can be or is directly tied to anticapitalist struggles and would be directly supportive of a worker's movement- they can have their hunter gather's society as I'm sure it would fit into such an environment post rev.

This is my morning ramble after work- have fun with it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ultimately irrelevant- no pun intended. :rolleyes:

I was saying that we're going to view our needs and our individual lives as superior to anything else- if the other species on this planet were just as we are in intelligence and what have you-

But that's the thing; they aren't.


So what you end up with is a system where we're basing worth on our own characteristics as a species.

Still not seeing the issue here... not forgetting that there are species which are valuable to humans based on properties other than intelligence.


I think when the environmental arguments surface on this forum- it would be better to first come to an agreement on what needs to go- on what industries should eventually be abolished and I think both camps would agree that most of our resource extraction industries would be abolished and replaced with clean ones-

What do you mean by this exactly?


Most of what the technocrats are proposing- at the end of the day- is the same as what post-civ'ers are proposing-

Primitivism is different in that even the softer advocates of it- that want no mass exterminations of humans or industry- want a hunter gather society-

How do technocrats propose the same thing as primitivists, when technocrats don't advocate a hunter-gatherer society?


What I would suggest to them is to get on board with say- tecnocracy- which is one of the only environmental 'movements' that can be or is directly tied to anticapitalist struggles and would be directly supportive of a worker's movement- they can have their hunter gather's society as I'm sure it would fit into such an environment post rev.

Although it's not explicitly spelled out in what I've read, proposals made by technocrats often have the effect of compactifying technological civilisation, with Urbanates sourcing their needs from as close as possible and integrated transport systems obviating the need for land-hungry roads and car parks.

In which case, I guess it would free up space for those who want to live off the grid.

[Ele'ill]

But that's the thing; they aren't.



Still not seeing the issue here... not forgetting that there are species which are valuable to humans based on properties other than intelligence.


I don't think we should allow for the eradication of a species because we view our industry as more important than it- even if that species serves no immediate purpose to us as humans. (post rev even)




What do you mean by this exactly?


From what I've seen on this forum the argument of Environment vs Technocrats always seems to skip over valuable commentary regarding similarities and compromise.




How do technocrats propose the same thing as primitivists, when technocrats don't advocate a hunter-gatherer society?

Because as you posted below- there would be plenty of space available for such a life.

If the technocrats are going to be as 'green' or sustainable as they say they are- perhaps a hunter gatherer society would work in the open space- I think a lot of people would do it- perhaps not a lot in proportion to the entire population but I think quite a number would chose to live as such.

Technocracy doesn't advocate primitivism but primitivism should be looking at technocracy as a means to achieving their goal that right now would be impossible- it would also skip the steps involving genocide.

It just seems logical to me that both can coexist with complete content- this relies on technocracy being extremely clean to the point of reversing a lot of the damage done by our current industry- although I understand this wouldn't be the main concern or purpose.





Although it's not explicitly spelled out in what I've read, proposals made by technocrats often have the effect of compactifying technological civilisation, with Urbanates sourcing their needs from as close as possible and integrated transport systems obviating the need for land-hungry roads and car parks.

I think vast amounts of open space are desirable and possible.

[Quail]

I don't think it would be inplausible to have hunter-gatherers existing in the open spaces between the urbanates. There should be more open spaces in a technocratic society. I would have to question why primitivists would choose to cooperate with technocrats though. From my understanding of primitivists, they see technology and the advancement of civilisation as the reason why the system is messed up. I don't see why they would want to cooperate with technocrats, only to reject their vision of society and live away from it? Unless they changed their minds, and realised that we can use technology in an efficient, environmentally friendly way.

I'm sure I've worded that badly, but I'm tired.

[Sir Comradical]

ElJFYwRtrH4

Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

BAHAHAHAHAHA.

Degenerates, they will turn into monkeys.

I hate being associated with such primitivist garbage.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think we should allow for the eradication of a species because we view our industry as more important than it- even if that species serves no immediate purpose to us as humans. (post rev even)

I agree that we should not unnecesarily drive species to extinction, but considering the variability of life and the fuzziness of species as a category, it seems that we will be quite unwittingly exterminating species for quite some time to come.

Although, if the eradication malaria meant the extinction of the mosquito, I would be among the first to assent to it. I suspect the biosphere is robust enough to survive the disappearance of a particular genus of disease-bearing parasite.


From what I've seen on this forum the argument of Environment vs Technocrats always seems to skip over valuable commentary regarding similarities and compromise.

Technocrats think that civilisation can be made sustainable through the intelligent and rational application of technology - critics seem to believe otherwise, for whatever reason.


Because as you posted below- there would be plenty of space available for such a life.

If the technocrats are going to be as 'green' or sustainable as they say they are- perhaps a hunter gatherer society would work in the open space- I think a lot of people would do it- perhaps not a lot in proportion to the entire population but I think quite a number would chose to live as such.

Elsewhere I have expressed the possibility of technological civilisation leaving Earth altogether in a state of nature. If technological civilisation is considered by some to be a detriment to the Earth, could we at least have the chance to leave and settle someplace where we'll be less trouble? :cool:


Technocracy doesn't advocate primitivism but primitivism should be looking at technocracy as a means to achieving their goal that right now would be impossible- it would also skip the steps involving genocide.

It just seems logical to me that both can coexist with complete content- this relies on technocracy being extremely clean to the point of reversing a lot of the damage done by our current industry- although I understand this wouldn't be the main concern or purpose.

A lot of damaging practices could be reversed simply by stopping them and allowing environmental equilibria to right themselves. It may turn out that former rubbish dumps end up being sought-after sources of plastic and other materials, the extraction of which would remove it from the natutral environment.

[Ravachol]

I'm no 'treehugger' in any sense of the word and to be fairly honest I'm not that concerned with 'the environment' (I do care about animal rights though and consider them a seperate, if related, issue). What I don't get, however, is the disregard for both the fact that the biosphere is rather crucial to our continued existence and the quality of life that is gained by a certain 'closeness' to nature. I'm sure everyone here enjoys the aesthetic value of certain natural scenery. As much as I hate environmentalists and the associated liberal attitude of caring more about trees than about people or some 'mother earth' as a living integral whole mystification, I don't think we should take the opposite position.

Also, the limited nature of a lot of resources ought to be a concern for all communists, it's not about some wacky earth first! 'we love you trees!' nonsense but about the fact that the integrity of the biosphere and the usage of resources is rather crucial to the quality of life of everybody, both in a material sense (through resources) and other ways.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I prefer to be called an environmentalist and not a tree hugger.

[Summerspeaker]

I like your thinking on this subject, NoXion. In theory, anarchist technocracy could coexist with primitivism. I don't know how many primitivists would accept such an arrangement, but I suspect some would. A few of my green anarchist comrades might as well be just communists or syndicalists for the short term. Not all primitivists unconditionally oppose technology in practice. Vicious dismissals of that ideology concern me. I don't know about y'all, but I'm in no position to burn bridges. It's valuable for all of us radicals to work together on the considerable amount we agree on.

I appreciate the sentiment and reverence for nature found in the extreme environmentalist movement while simultaneous enjoying the open defiance of biological limitations in transhumanism. Conceiving of our relationship with the natural world as one of domination strikes me as unnecessarily unpleasant at best and disastrous at worst. I much prefer the affection and compassion expressed in the act of treehugging. Fondness for forests only causes harm when it extends to the point of preferring plants over people.

[Ocean Seal]

i'm curious... are you a treehugger.

guess i should define treehugger huh? do you think that we should do everything possible to save the world around it? do you think its also a component of communism, intrinsic.

its not only a very self preserving thing to do, logically, but its also the noble thing to do. i dont see my life as any more valuable then an ants. there is no value between life. value is a figment of your capitalist brainwashing thats been going on since you popped out.
I'm a reasonable treehugger. There is a difference between preserving the life of a human and the life of an ant. An ant does not possess the sentience, there are many ants, and they die rather quickly. We should preserve to ensure a safe environment for our posterity, but we shouldn't take things to such an extreme. Its not a particularly good tactic for recruiting leftists nor should we ever consider that a human's life is equal to that of an ants, that detracts from our pride as humans which is something that the capitalist is always pushing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I like your thinking on this subject, NoXion. In theory, anarchist technocracy could coexist with primitivism. I don't know how many primitivists would accept such an arrangement, but I suspect some would.

I wonder exactly how many, though.


A few of my green anarchist comrades might as well be just communists or syndicalists for the short term. Not all primitivists unconditionally oppose technology in practice.

In the short term most of us take what we can get. Primitivism can extend from "merely" opposing anything invented in the Industrial Revolution and afterwards, all the way to the development of language. I get the impression that technocrats would get along better with those who are more towards the retro-technological end of the spectrum as opposed the anti-language types.


Vicious dismissals of that ideology concern me. I don't know about y'all, but I'm in no position to burn bridges. It's valuable for all of us radicals to work together on the considerable amount we agree on.

There is no argument so acrimonious that reconciliation is impossible, at least in the absence of physical confrontation.


I appreciate the sentiment and reverence for nature found in the extreme environmentalist movement while simultaneous enjoying the open defiance of biological limitations in transhumanism. Conceiving of our relationship with the natural world as one of domination strikes me as unnecessarily unpleasant at best and disastrous at worst. I much prefer the affection and compassion expressed in the act of treehugging. Fondness for forests only causes harm when it extends to the point of preferring plants over people.

I'm not sure, but I think my reverence for the natural world has a different motivating factor than the equivalent deep green's reverence. In my view, the natural world is a wonderous interconnected cornucopia of both startling complexity and surprising simplicity, with chaotic patterns that skirt the boundary between meaningless noise and clockwork precision. It is a truely marvellous tapestry, and to date our own interweavings have been crude and clumsy, but I sincerely hope that soon enough we will be able to reweave the world in a pattern that combines the best of the old with the infinite possibilities of the new.

[Ovi]

Capitalists can be pretty moral chaps, capital is neither moral nor a chap. Engels, for example, was a capitalist, and a pretty decent person. On the other hand, what we're fighting against is capital, in order to establish conscious human control over human production, rather than capitalism's 'rule of things'. As regards capitalists considering everything to be theirs for the taking, the problem is not that they have moral qualms about taking things, it's rather that they are ruled by the profit motive, and therefore take things without any concern for harmful effects, safety risks, inefficiency and so on. One may well be able to take everything while choosing not to take some things due to possible negative effects, rather than moral qualms, and using those which one does optimally.
I wasn't referring to capitalists as persons, but to capitalists as guided by capital and profit motive, in complete disregard of anything else. More exactly, to something like this

No because I don't love the environment. I only care about the environment with regards to how it affects humanity. Other than that, nature is there for us to exploit

[ZeroNowhere]

Fair enough. In my opinion, however, the problem is more that the capitalists judge precisely not according to how things affect humanity, but rather how they affect the valorisation of value.

[Ele'ill]

I think the issue is when we start to project feelings for or onto the environment- someone made an important point that the natural world is extremely brutal- I think the biosphere reacts to harmful incursions as a challenge more than it reacts in terror or 'pain'.
(This is a point unrelated and different to past animal rights thread discussions)

I'm not a primitivist but I certainly agree with many of the ideas and critiques presented by some primitivists (as we know) as well as eco or green anarchists that tend to be more post-civ.

I am fairly confident that an increase in technology can create more space that's untouched by technology and industry- I think a lot of the radical environmental community would push for this. I think that a purely primitivist existence would eventually resort back to using some technologies- there'd be no way to control the groups that did- and the urge to use technology would be immense as it would make life easier in so many ways. We might as well just start out where we're at and move forward rather than falling all the way back just to have it start again in an uncontrollable manner.

[mikelepore]

"Nature is man's inorganic body -- that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body. Man lives from nature -- i.e., nature is his body -- and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it is he is not to die. To say that man's physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature."

-- Karl Marx, manuscripts of 1844

[Vanguard1917]

"Nature is man's inorganic body -- that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body. Man lives from nature -- i.e., nature is his body -- and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it is he is not to die. To say that man's physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature."

-- Karl Marx, manuscripts of 1844

Indeed. However:

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

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch14.htm

[bailey_187]

No, we advocate the abolition of the distiniction between town and countryside through the building up of the latter

[noble brown]

We are not slaves to nature. Nature is a slave to us. We must manipulate it, control it, use it to our advantage, to make our lives better and ensure the absolute supremacy of humanity. We have the power to create a utopia on Earth, and even beyond Earth. If we bow before lesser beings, unintelligent animals and plants who's only purpose is to provide us with essential nutrients, then we will ruin our species.


hey this is interesting... substitue the word nature for niggers and humanity for white race... sounds like a recycled grand wizard speech.

he was joking right?!

[bailey_187]

hey this is interesting... substitue the word nature for niggers and humanity for white race... sounds like a recycled grand wizard speech.

he was joking right?!

yeah except he isnt talking about black people and he is referring to the entire human race

replace bourgeois with any sort of racist term and workers with white people in any communist writing....OMG WE ARE ALL RACISTS

seriously, what a stupid fucking point u made

[Omi]

The point is, the kind of logic this user expressed is very dangerous indeed and is in no way a progressive view on the environment and our place in it. It leads to mass suffering among other beings and has no place in revolutionary discourse.

[bailey_187]

The point is, the kind of logic this user expressed is very dangerous indeed and is in no way a progressive view on the environment and our place in it. It leads to mass suffering among other beings and has no place in revolutionary discourse.

Mass suffering among who?

If the idea that man(and woman) should master nature to use it for its own purpose is not progressive, basically the entire Enlightenment movement, Marx and nearly every notable Communist since were reactionary.

The whole idea of progress etc comes from those very people who advocated increased control over nature for the benefit of mankind.


You could claim our logic of "liquidating" a class is dangerous and will lead to suffering, and with a little change of words i.e from class to race, becomes something disgusting

[noble brown]

If the life of one human is as valuable as that of one ant, then, if there happened to be two ants threatened by a bus, you would therefore be obligated to throw yourself in front of the bus to save them if such were possible..

well sure if we didnt have an overwhelming desire to preserve ourselves. logiclly yes, you would in some way be obligated if thats your m.o. but logic doesnt do very well as a behavorial predictor. can i even expect this behavior from some one? absolutely not. this would be a direct dissmissal of our nature itself, and my whole point is that we are nature. those railroads, yes believe it or not they too are nature. why, because we cannot make anything that is not still of nature because we only rearrange natural elements to our needs. we didnt "create" anything fundamentally new.


Tsunamis do not do so. They are natural. Hence 'getting in line with nature and not attempting to manage it from above' as a principle would entail allowing tsunamis if they could be prevented without any risk through establishing control over nature, and therefore comes into conflict here with preservation of human life..

no because a part of our nature is self preservation.


As regards capitalists considering everything to be theirs for the taking, the problem is not that they have moral qualms about taking things, it's rather that they are ruled by the profit motive, and therefore take things without any concern for harmful effects, safety risks, inefficiency and so on. .

yes i agree w/ u. its not the ppl but the systems that facilitate this shit that are the bad. i dont think anything wrong w/ using the river for electricity. i disapprove of doing it w/out any knowledge of or care for the rest of the enviroment. its in our nature to build and utilize the world around us, but the rest of the natural world does so to. it wouldnt be part of the biosphere if it didnt. its not whether or not we do it but rather how we develop and use it. if we had maintained a integral connection w/ nature then we'd stiil have technology but it would just look alot different. we would by now know how to keep our ecological footprint to a minimum, while still enjoying the same level of technology. it is my current understandin that the culture of capitalism was the last straw in severing that connection.

[noble brown]

replace bourgeois with any sort of racist term and workers with white people in any communist writing....OMG WE ARE ALL RACISTS


funny, do you want to enslave the bourgeois? exploit them?

nope i stick w/ my previous implication. its silly inflamitory language seething with disrespect.

[noble brown]

If the idea that man(and woman) should master nature to use it for its own purpose is not progressive, basically the entire Enlightenment movement, Marx and nearly every notable Communist since were reactionary.

we have not mastered nature yet by any means. we're still pre-schoolers in that particular class. well thought out and intelligent technological progress is a good thing. but wanton haphazard development is a bad thing. until we reach the point that we are masters of nature which would mean bein pretty much omnipotent we gotta work like we're inside and a constituent part of nature not its master. that leads to mass sufering.

[bailey_187]

funny, do you want to enslave the bourgeois? exploit them?

nope i stick w/ my previous implication. its silly inflamitory language seething with disrespect.

some dumb guy

that wasnt my point. My point was simply changing words to racial slurs can apply to anything, so your post was bullshit.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of racial struggle. The German and the Turk, Frenchman and Algerian, American and Hispanic, British and Indian, in a word, white versus coloured, stood in constant opposition to eachother" - Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the White Man

OMG MARX'S THINKING WAS DANGEROUS AND CLOSE TO ADVOCATING RACE WAR

[bailey_187]

we have not mastered nature yet by any means. we're still pre-schoolers in that particular class. well thought out and intelligent technological progress is a good thing. but wanton haphazard development is a bad thing. until we reach the point that we are masters of nature which would mean bein pretty much omnipotent we gotta work like we're inside and a constituent part of nature not its master. that leads to mass sufering.

what the hell are you on about? No one means man has absolute control of nature in an omnipotant way. What it means is we can manipulate it, mold it and use it for our own benefit.

MASS SUFFERING FOR WHAT?

[noble brown]

that wasnt my point. My point was simply changing words to racial slurs can apply to anything, so your post was bullshit.

and my point was that it isnt the same. racial slurs are about superiority, oppression, enslavement and exploitation. this is directly opposite of what the next step in social evolution should be. i didnt expect that you would wanna enslave anyone. i was just making my point that it isnt the same language which is why it sounded so stupid, cause it was.


"The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of racial struggle. The German and the Turk, Frenchman and Algerian, American and Hispanic, British and Indian, in a word, white versus coloured, stood in constant opposition to eachother" - Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the White Man

OMG MARX'S THINKING WAS DANGEROUS AND CLOSE TO ADVOCATING RACE WAR

i dont see anything characteristic of rascism in this...just an observation.

oh and mass suffering of ppl & the rest of the enviroment. the ones subjected to all the negatives of harmful technology

[bailey_187]

and my point was that it isnt the same. racial slurs are about superiority, oppression, enslavement and exploitation. this is directly opposite of what the next step in social evolution should be. i didnt expect that you would wanna enslave anyone. i was just making my point that it isnt the same language which is why it sounded so stupid, cause it was.

Yeah and those things make racism bad because there is no real difference between races. Those things are bad when done to a human. However there is a big difference between humans and animals/plants




i dont see anything characteristic of rascism in this...just an observation.

erm ok then....

[noble brown]

Yeah and those things make racism bad because there is no real difference between races. Those things are bad when done to a human. However there is a big difference between humans and animals/plants


okay. so basically supperiority, enslavement , exploitation are okay as long as its not against another human. i catagorically disagree. this shit is unnecessary and just plain wrong. they are all expressions of greed. greed of power, greed of control and greed of value. and justifyoung such ideals under any circumstances is dangerous.

[bailey_187]

okay. so basically supperiority, enslavement , exploitation are okay as long as its not against another human. i catagorically disagree. this shit is unnecessary and just plain wrong. they are all expressions of greed. greed of power, greed of control and greed of value. and justifyoung such ideals under any circumstances is dangerous.

well yeah

Chickens that produce eggs for us are enslaved. It doesnt bother me.

[noble brown]

well yeah

Chickens that produce eggs for us are enslaved. It doesnt bother me.


lol. yes there is a caveat of sorts there. good eye. there is a limited number of domesticated and or domesticatable species out there. domestication requires a change on a genetic level from its original form to one for human needs or use. most are reliant on humans for survival. its like anything else we build or make like a railroad or such. since we did it we must take care of it.

[Crimson Commissar]

okay. so basically supperiority, enslavement , exploitation are okay as long as its not against another human. i catagorically disagree. this shit is unnecessary and just plain wrong. they are all expressions of greed. greed of power, greed of control and greed of value. and justifyoung such ideals under any circumstances is dangerous.
Yes, yes they are. Animals can be of great use to humanity, to get the full potential out of them we must enslave them. I'm not ashamed to say I support "animal slavery". The fact is, we need to preserve our species and make our lives better in any way we can. Might aswell make some use of the less-intelligent animals of this planet.

[Klaatu]

In my view, trashing the planet is like trashing one's own house. Would you throw garbage on your floor, punch holes in the wall,
bust up your TV set, pee in the middle of your living room, etc?

For those that would answer YES to those questions, please confine your destruction to your own household, and leave mine alone. ;)

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

Yes, yes they are. Animals can be of great use to humanity, to get the full potential out of them we must enslave them. I'm not ashamed to say I support "animal slavery". The fact is, we need to preserve our species and make our lives better in any way we can. Might aswell make some use of the less-intelligent animals of this planet.
Or we might as well use plants that are even more useful than animals like hemp.

[MellowViper]

i'm curious... are you a treehugger.

guess i should define treehugger huh? do you think that we should do everything possible to save the world around it? do you think its also a component of communism, intrinsic.

its not only a very self preserving thing to do, logically, but its also the noble thing to do. i dont see my life as any more valuable then an ants. there is no value between life. value is a figment of your capitalist brainwashing thats been going on since you popped out.

I don't know if its communist, but I do consider myself a tree hugger, and I think it will be more possible to protect the environment under a non-consumerist society. I think the answer to logging is hemp. For every 4 acres of trees used to make paper, you can make the same amount with only 1 acre of industrial hemp. I suggest reading the late Jack Herer's book "The Emperor Wears No Clothes".

[Crimson Commissar]

Or we might as well use plants that are even more useful than animals like hemp.
Or we could just use both?

[Ravachol]

Would you throw garbage on your floor, punch holes in the wall, bust up your TV set, pee in the middle of your living room, etc?


Sounds like one hell of a fucking party!


But in all seriousness the entire 'mastering nature' argument is rather ambigeous for, as with all developments under Capitalism, we must ask ourselves: master what for whom?

I'm sure that except for hardcore primitivists nobody disagrees with the necessity to completely master non-sentient 'nature' to the fullest benefit of mankind. The problem is that the 'fullest benefit' is something that would imply both longterm thinking (carefull resource management) as well as a respect for the fact that sometimes nature has worth for nature's sake, if only for aesthetic reasons if nothing else. I for one wouldn't want to live in a world made solemnly out of molten steel and concrete.

The big problem, however, is that under Capital's omnipresent dominance all development is goal-oriented towards the effective accumulation and circulation of Capital and thus 'mastering nature' is a process subjected to this logic as well. Thus assuming that this process is intrinsically to the 'benefit of all mankind' is rather silly.

Processes of whatever kind can only be sensibly evaluated in their context, never inside a theoretical bubble seeking to extract the 'intrinsic' character of this or that process.

[Ele'ill]

Here's a morning ramble for you all

I just want to point out that given my past engagement in conversations such as this one I can be considered an element of the environmentalist community- a fairly radical one at that- I'm making an effort to compromise because I either don't see hope in liberal progressive single issue approaches (lol who does) and I don't see any chance of primitivism working at all unless it's coupled with a system that liberates large plots of space to be free of industry.

I'm willing to compromise in that regard.


I will likely always take a stand against the meat industry. I don't think meat is necessary in diet and certainly won't be post social change when all other foods will be available to remote areas- of course with the possibility of some exceptions which can be dealt with appropriately.

A thought just occured to me that I don't know if I'd have a problem with the meat industry if the large plots of land were used for buffalo and or regular cattle. I know this is dreamy and given the population density in certain areas it wouldn't be feasible to hunt- but maybe it would be. Maybe a 30 minute drive would yield an animal every time and people certainly wouldn't horde. There could be collective freezers at various housing units etc...

My point is that this is precisely why I'm compromising with technocracy- because I find creativity to be exciting when there isn't a profit motive.

[The Douche]

I'm sure that except for hardcore primitivists nobody disagrees with the necessity to completely master non-sentient 'nature' to the fullest benefit of mankind.

I don't consider myself a "hardcore primitivist" (though I admit that I am influenced by them and do consider myself to be "anti-civ") and I disagree with this sentiment. I don't think we (humans) need to master anything. And the opinion that we do is just antropocentric bias. I don't consider humans to be any more important than anything else on this planet/the planet itself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Mari3L, I think posts like the one I quote below go to the heart of the disagreement between technocrats and deep green/anti-civ types. Total control of the Earth's many interlinked systems may not be possible, but technocrats certainly do believe that a greater degree of mastery than currently is the case is both possible and desirable (such as a continental hydrology system).


I don't consider myself a "hardcore primitivist" (though I admit that I am influenced by them and do consider myself to be "anti-civ") and I disagree with this sentiment. I don't think we (humans) need to master anything.

Why not? Nature certainly doesn't care for our welfare - if we don't take steps to control and modify our environment to our benefit, nothing else will.


And the opinion that we do is just antropocentric bias. I don't consider humans to be any more important than anything else on this planet/the planet itself.

Anthropocentric bias is what keeps us alive - any species that does not value its own survival over that of anything else is rapidly extinguished by natural selection, because every other species' actions are geared towards ensuring their own survival.

[The Douche]

Mari3L, I think posts like the one I quote below go to the heart of the disagreement between technocrats and deep green/anti-civ types.

I agree, I don't think there is really much room (if any) for compromise between technocrats and anti-civs. And while I vehemently disagree with your ideas (and I'm sure, you with mine) I recognize that you are doing what you think is best to create a more just world, and that does include being against state and capital.


Why not? Nature certainly doesn't care for our welfare - if we don't take steps to control and modify our environment to our benefit, nothing else will.

Its just my opinion that we exist in a symbiotic relationship with our eco-system, not in a position of mastery over it (or it over us). I believe that my life comes from/is dependent on the earth and its inhabitants, and as such I think it is necessary to respect, not master them.


Anthropocentric bias is what keeps us alive - any species that does not value its own survival over that of anything else is rapidly extinguished by natural selection, because every other species' actions are geared towards ensuring their own survival.

If you don't see how our survival is intertwined with the survival of our ecosystem then you might be blind.

But my motivation in being anti-civ is not really "spiritual" or metaphysical (which is the direction this is heading, obviously) but comes from my opposition to capital and the society it creates (alienation mainly).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Its just my opinion that we exist in a symbiotic relationship with our eco-system, not in a position of mastery over it (or it over us). I believe that my life comes from/is dependent on the earth and its inhabitants, and as such I think it is necessary to respect, not master them.

Your opinion is not supported by the facts - in a state of nature, one takes what one can get; if the growing season was short or otherwise attenuated for whatever reason, you make do with less, go hungry, or in extreme cases starve to death. Natural events can also make life nastier and shorter in such a context. As things currently stand, modern agriculture cushions some of us somewhat, but it's not good enough. Everyone deserves to have the same level of protection from the vagaries of nature extended to them that people in the developed countries enjoy. To achieve this means a greater level of control and finesse in modifying our environment, undertaken by a more rational kind of society that values actual human beings rather than economic fictions.


If you don't see how our survival is intertwined with the survival of our ecosystem then you might be blind.

I do. But left to their own devices, ecosystems have no reason whatsoever to operate in a manner that is friendly to humans. Terrible things have happened to this planet, entirely without human intervention. They will certainly happen again, and if we lack the means to eliminate or mitigate their effects, then we are royally fucked six ways from Sunday. Making the Earth's ecosystems more friendly to human life is not the same as destroying them.


But my motivation in being anti-civ is not really "spiritual" or metaphysical (which is the direction this is heading, obviously) but comes from my opposition to capital and the society it creates (alienation mainly).

Civilisation is possible without capital - to believe otherwise is to basically fall in step with Fukuyama's idea that capitalism represents the "end of history", which is nonsense on many levels.

[Vanguard1917]

Its just my opinion that we exist in a symbiotic relationship with our eco-system, not in a position of mastery over it (or it over us). I believe that my life comes from/is dependent on the earth and its inhabitants, and as such I think it is necessary to respect, not master them.

That's nice, but if your human ancestors did not take steps to master their natural environment and subject it to their will, most of the positive things you take for granted in your everyday life would simply not exist.


I do. But left to their own devices, ecosystems have no reason whatsoever to operate in a manner that is friendly to humans. Terrible things have happened to this planet, entirely without human intervention. They will certainly happen again, and if we lack the means to eliminate or mitigate their effects, then we are royally fucked six ways from Sunday. Making the Earth's ecosystems more friendly to human life is not the same as destroying them.

Indeed it is empirical fact that the more developed we are socially and economically, the less vulnerable we tend to be to the destructive aspects of nature, whether natural disasters, diseases or extreme shifts in climate.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't consider humans to be any more important than anything else on this planet/the planet itself.

Oh dear.

[The Douche]

Your opinion is not supported by the facts - in a state of nature, one takes what one can get; if the growing season was short or otherwise attenuated for whatever reason, you make do with less, go hungry, or in extreme cases starve to death.

Or there is your alternative where we pilliage the earth and its inhabitants for our own gain. If the option is only to live within what the earth can provide for us, or to exploit the earth and its creatures then I know which side I am on.


Making the Earth's ecosystems more friendly to human life is not the same as destroying them.


I think the earth is better at sustaining itself than we are. If humans are destructive of the earth (which we certainly are at present) and nothing is changing then we will probably have to go. Our presence here is not important (other than to us and some species who depend on us, a minority of what lives on the planet).


Civilisation is possible without capital - to believe otherwise is to basically fall in step with Fukuyama's idea that capitalism represents the "end of history", which is nonsense on many levels.

I think civilization can exist without capital, but there are certain issues which I think the both of us are against, but you identify them as results of capital and I see them as results of civilization. (I think civilization is dependent on oppression and naturally results in alienation.)


That's nice, but if your human ancestors did not take steps to master their natural environment and subject it to their will, most of the positive things you take for granted in your everyday life would simply not exist.

Duh?


Indeed it is empirical fact that the more developed we are socially and economically, the less vulnerable we tend to be to the destructive aspects of nature, whether natural disasters, diseases or extreme shifts in climate.

Great...humans are immune to the natural cleansing processes the earth has used through millions of years. Maybe these things happen for a reason?

[Summerspeaker]

NoXion, what purpose does the narrative of master over nature serve? While I agree with need for increased control of the material circumstances our lives, expressing that as relationship of domination brings in extraneous baggage.

With regards to physical specifics, the current trajectory of technology may obviate the desirability of classical technocratic ideas such as a continental hydrology. If molecular manufacturing ever pans out, the factory as we know it could become a thing of the past. I would prefer to leave the ecosystem as intact as possible while achieving a high standard of living for each human being on the planet.

[noble brown]

That's nice, but if your human ancestors did not take steps to master their natural environment and subject it to their will, most of the positive things you take for granted in your everyday life would simply not exist..

what exactly did we master in nature? . we are still subject to the physical laws that govern the universe. sure we build an manipulate but so does just about everything else. we are talking about a matter of degrees not can and cannot. but whatever. this could obviously go on 4ever. you and your ilk are convinced that you have an intrinsic right to do what u want. maybe your right. i doubt it but hey ive been to prison for being wrong before. i hope youre right and we have somehow been granted absolute ownership of this universe cause apparently no ones listening to us, maybe one day b4 its to late we'll know 4 sure.

[Crimson Commissar]

what exactly did we master in nature? . we are still subject to the physical laws that govern the universe. sure we build an manipulate but so does just about everything else. we are talking about a matter of degrees not can and cannot. but whatever. this could obviously go on 4ever. you and your ilk are convinced that you have an intrinsic right to do what u want. maybe your right. i doubt it but hey ive been to prison for being wrong before. i hope youre right and we have somehow been granted absolute ownership of this universe cause apparently no ones listening to us, maybe one day b4 its to late we'll know 4 sure.
If any other being on this Earth was intelligent enough to build civilizations as we have, then sure, we'd have to co-operate with them. But as I have said many, many times, they are not. Humanity has the right to take control of nature and other animals. We shouldn't restrict ourselves simply because we have to interfere with nature to get what we want.

[ZeroNowhere]

If humans are destructive of the earth (which we certainly are at present)We are hardly destroying 'the Earth'.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Or there is your alternative where we pilliage the earth and its inhabitants for our own gain. If the option is only to live within what the earth can provide for us, or to exploit the earth and its creatures then I know which side I am on.

Nice use of emotive language. I do not advocate the "pillage" of the Earth and its resources, rather I advocate responsible stewardship with a view to providing the greatest quality of life for the largest amount of people. In fact sustainable practices are not just a nice addition, but absolutely necessary if the primary goal is to be achieved.


I think the earth is better at sustaining itself than we are. If humans are destructive of the earth (which we certainly are at present) and nothing is changing then we will probably have to go. Our presence here is not important (other than to us and some species who depend on us, a minority of what lives on the planet).

If human practices are set to never change, then the debate about civilisation is ultimately pointless since we're all going to die anyway. Hell, it renders revolutionary leftism pointless; why bother advocating classless society if we're still going to be wrecking the environment and are likely to collapse beforehand anyway? Might as well just forget all that revolution shit and party until the end of world is upon us.

Sure, in a completely objective sense our presence on this planet is not necessary, since you are human as well as I, from the point of view of human beings our presence is important. Just because the universe is indifferent (like it has any choice!) doesn't mean that it is right for you to adopt that indifference for yourself.


I think civilization can exist without capital, but there are certain issues which I think the both of us are against, but you identify them as results of capital and I see them as results of civilization. (I think civilization is dependent on oppression and naturally results in alienation.)

I think you are guilty of making a hasty generalisation here, since all the examples of technological civilisation you have to draw on are class societies.


Great...humans are immune to the natural cleansing processes the earth has used through millions of years. Maybe these things happen for a reason?

"Cleansing"? Evidence, as if much more were needed, that anti-civilisation is a fundamentally irrational position akin to religious belief. Yes, there are reasons for mass extinction, but they are not teleological; they are a consquence of a mindless system operating according to dumb physical laws that arose in a blind universe.

[Amphictyonis]

NoXion, what purpose does the narrative of master over nature serve? While I agree with need for increased control of the material circumstances our lives, expressing that as relationship of domination brings in extraneous baggage.


Bookchin said our aim to dominate nature is born out of the bourgeois perspective of man dominating man. He was more for a symbiotic relationship, thought it foolish of us to think we could dominate nature. I read 'The Ecology Of Freedom' a while back and he has some different ways of looking at things. I'm still not sure what to think of Bookchin.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

NoXion, what purpose does the narrative of master over nature serve? While I agree with need for increased control of the material circumstances our lives, expressing that as relationship of domination brings in extraneous baggage.

Even if the human species were to make complete and total peace amongst itself (ha!), the universe would still play the role of implacable antagonist due to its blind indifference. Those idiots who witter on about symbiosis and the bounty of nature forget that we live in a universe that mostly consists of cold hard vacuum or broiling hot plasma.


With regards to physical specifics, the current trajectory of technology may obviate the desirability of classical technocratic ideas such as a continental hydrology. If molecular manufacturing ever pans out, the factory as we know it could become a thing of the past. I would prefer to leave the ecosystem as intact as possible while achieving a high standard of living for each human being on the planet.

As exciting as the potential for molecular nanotechnology is, I would prefer not to base my ideas on hypothetical technologies that may not come to pass. A continental hydrology is easily within the grasp of current technology, and may even be achievable with 19th century technology if it comes to it.

[Amphictyonis]

I think we can all agree human beings should live in a symbiotic relationship with nature rather than the 'chaos' we currently experience under capitalism. Technology and or industry isn't the problem it's the current economic system. I don't think any of us have that much to disagree on (unless you're a primo).

[The Douche]

We are hardly destroying 'the Earth'.

Yeah bro, and global warming doesn't exist.:rolleyes:


Nice use of emotive language. I do not advocate the "pillage" of the Earth and its resources,

You're right, my bad.


rather I advocate responsible stewardship with a view to providing the greatest quality of life for the largest amount of people. In fact sustainable practices are not just a nice addition, but absolutely necessary if the primary goal is to be achieved.

I know you believe that, but I see civlilization as being inherently irreseponsible. And inherently oppressive. (I know I'm talking in circles)


If human practices are set to never change, then the debate about civilisation is ultimately pointless since we're all going to die anyway.

I don't think they're set to never change, I don't think they show signs of changing anytime soon right now. I also do think collapse is imminent at this point. But it is not going to kill us all.


Hell, it renders revolutionary leftism pointless; why bother advocating classless society if we're still going to be wrecking the environment and are likely to collapse beforehand anyway? Might as well just forget all that revolution shit and party until the end of world is upon us.

I think you allready know that I am in the post-leftist camp, I'm sure you knew this because of my open affiliation with RAAN, my defense of Derrick Jensen, and my alignment of myself with the term "anti-civ". But I think you also know that post-leftists don't think we ought to just say "fuck it". Yes, I do think, that your revolution will continue an oppresive society, and a very alienated society, and one which will still exist in a manner which is unsustainable.


Sure, in a completely objective sense our presence on this planet is not necessary, since you are human as well as I, from the point of view of human beings our presence is important. Just because the universe is indifferent (like it has any choice!) doesn't mean that it is right for you to adopt that indifference for yourself.

Of course I care about humans because there are many humans I care about, and that is why I oppose civilization, cause we have to take down civilization in order to continue living and in order to create lives worth living.


I think you are guilty of making a hasty generalisation here, since all the examples of technological civilisation you have to draw on are class societies.

Technological civilization entails division of labor, which entails class society. All civilizations are class societies, to oppose class society we have to oppose civilizations.


"Cleansing"? Evidence, as if much more were needed, that anti-civilisation is a fundamentally irrational position akin to religious belief. Yes, there are reasons for mass extinction, but they are not teleological; they are a consquence of a mindless system operating according to dumb physical laws that arose in a blind universe.

When populations (of plants or animals or whatever) get to high the ecosystem reacts and attempts to regain a sense of balance. I do admit that there is a metaphysical (spiritual, if you must, but I don't like that word cause its so loaded) element to being against civilization.

Also I find your contempt for the natural mechanisims of our plant repulsive.

[noble brown]

We are hardly destroying 'the Earth'.

no i doubt that too, but we are probably destroying the most propitious enviromental conditons for supporting human life much less those pesky insignificant lesser creatures that have for some odd reason evolved for no real ecological reason. evolution's soo randomly inefficent like that!

[Amphictyonis]

Technological civilization entails division of labor, which entails class society. All civilizations are class societies, to oppose class society we have to oppose civilizations.


Capitalism gave rise to the division of labor. Marx realized this unfortunate relationship between capitalist worker and machinery was progressive only in so much as it gave rise to industrial society. Industrial society is necessary for mankind to collectively control the means of production.

Read chapter 14 from Das Capital. Or take this quote into account-

"the windmill gives you society with a feudal lord, the steam mill a society with an industrial capitalist' Marx - 'The poverty Of Philosophy'

The goal of communism is to take technology and harness it for the good of mankind not for the benefit of an elite minority. If you, in an advanced communist society, would see a garbage man as less important than a doctor then it's a lack of vision you're suffering from.

Chapter 11 and 12 from this book may help your vision as well-

http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/anarchism/berkman_abc_of_anarchism.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think they're set to never change, I don't think they show signs of changing anytime soon right now. I also do think collapse is imminent at this point. But it is not going to kill us all.

It won't have to in order to make the living envy the dead. Hardly the sort of circumstances in which a classless society arises; think more along the lines of a feudal or slave-holding society.


I think you allready know that I am in the post-leftist camp, I'm sure you knew this because of my open affiliation with RAAN, my defense of Derrick Jensen, and my alignment of myself with the term "anti-civ". But I think you also know that post-leftists don't think we ought to just say "fuck it".

Oh right, so you've thrown your lot in with the types who go "RAAN RAAN RAAN", I suppose that's a vast improvement. :rolleyes:


Yes, I do think, that your revolution will continue an oppresive society, and a very alienated society, and one which will still exist in a manner which is unsustainable.

And I think your kind of revolution would produce a primitive hellhole, resulting in our certain extinction because people are too busy scraping a living in the shattered ruins to even consider setting up a second chance elsewhere in the universe.


Of course I care about humans because there are many humans I care about, and that is why I oppose civilization, cause we have to take down civilization in order to continue living and in order to create lives worth living.

Only someone who lives a (relatively) pampered life in a developed country would utter something so foolish. Without civilisation we are reduced to living a hunter-gatherer existence, which requires enormous amounts of land to support the same number of people compared to agricultural societies,and hence would require the deaths of billions to come to pass. Now as badly as we are treating the environment currently, a mass die-off is not likely to happen soon, barring a completely natural disaster such as a supervolcano eruption or asteroid impact, but even those may only end up killing hundreds of millions or less.

Of course, suppose that the anti-civ dream were to come true and billions of people were to die in various nasty ways, we'd hardly be in a position to transition seamlessly to a hunter-gathering utopia - only a tiny minority of humans have the full suite of skill needed to live such an existence, and those that do are likely to be counted among the dead. Regardless of survival skills, infant mortality will be extremely high, and with no institutions to mediate conflict, combined with a marginal quality of life at best, the proportion of the surviving population experiencing violence will also skyrocket.

No thanks!


Technological civilization entails division of labor, which entails class society. All civilizations are class societies, to oppose class society we have to oppose civilizations.

I don't agree that division of labour necessarily entails class society, people are perfectly capable of coordinating their individual specialties without the intervention of a ruling or managerial class. Besides, even in hunter-gather societies divisions of labour can exist - someone has to stay behind and look after the kids.


When populations (of plants or animals or whatever) get to high the ecosystem reacts and attempts to regain a sense of balance. I do admit that there is a metaphysical (spiritual, if you must, but I don't like that word cause its so loaded) element to being against civilization.

Without human intervention, ecosystems would reach their own equilibria. The problem is, even primitive humans have the capability to effect ecosystems significantly - I would warrant that the discovery of fire (which occurred long before civilisation) had a major impact, what with humans collecting fuel and fires getting out of control now and again.


Also I find your contempt for the natural mechanisims of our plant repulsive.

As do I your misanthropy. Apparently, humans are total fuckups who need to be subject to a mass die-off for their own good. Yeuch.

[Amphictyonis]

I don't agree that division of labour necessarily entails class society, people are perfectly capable of coordinating their individual specialties without the intervention of a ruling or managerial class. Besides, even in hunter-gather societies divisions of labour can exist - someone has to stay behind and look after the kids.


Men hunted, women gathered and grew vegetables. Both contributed to material sustenance and hence were more equal than a man and woman in 1950's America.

I think the total abolition of class is impossible, by the definition our post leftist friend has of class society. Decentralization/democratization and equal opportunity in an advanced industrial system are more attractive to me than turning the clock back 500 years. Technology/industry has been very beneficial to mankind. They way in which it's used (capitalism) is a detriment.

I can concede some valid points the post leftists have. Technology can also be very restrictive. I don't think we should throw all criticisms of industrial society out of the window. We also shouldn't throw industrial society out of the window.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yeah bro, and global warming doesn't exist.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gifI think that the Earth can survive global warming quite easily, really.

[Magón]

I don't think you'd see me chaining myself up to any big Redwood Trees or linking arms around a river, and fending off construction teams; but yeah, I guess you could say I'm sort of a Tree Hugger. I mean, I like the wild, natural beauty that has been here for hundreds of years, and would like to see it kept the way it is. I don't think we have to tear down hundreds of acres of trees and such to make way for new homes.

[Klaatu]

I think that the Earth can survive global warming quite easily, really.

The earth itself, of course it can.

But humans? I don't know. Maybe G.W. is "god's" way of depopulating the planet - without irradiating it into oblivion - via nukes? :crying:

[Summerspeaker]

Theoretically the primitivist dream could come about by getting folks to stop breeding. Thanks to aging the planet would eventually have a small enough population to make abolishing civilization possible without massive death and disruption. Past that, either you believe collapse inevitable - as Derrick Jensen does - or you're okay with people starving.

On the whole, civilization has a poor record for enhancing human well-being. Only during the last century or two have basic health measures surpassed the hunter-gather baseline. Hobbes got things entirely wrong. The European masses of his day actually lived worse than supposed savages. However, modern technology has produced outstanding improvements in longevity if not necessarily happiness. The impressive record of recent invention as well as the dependency of so many on existing material structures makes continuing on the technological road an appealing option.

Personally I find both present industrial horrors and natural infirmities intolerable. While the traditional anarchist aim of technological mass society without hierarchy and coercion seems excessively optimistic, smashing civilization and stopping scientific progress dooms the species to frailty and pain forever.

[Klaatu]

As far as population of earth goes, I had this discussion with someone today:

My parents had five kids, me, two brothers and two sisters, back in the 1950s. (that's 5)

My one sister has a daughter, other sis has two daughters, and one brother has two sons. (that's 5)

So then, five begets five. Perfect population management: neither growing nor shrinking, at least as far as our family goes.

The point is that, this is the "zero-population growth model" which is needed, worldwide, and NOW.

[Magón]

As far as population of earth goes, I had this discussion with someone today:

My parents had five kids, me, two brothers and two sisters, back in the 1950s. (that's 5)

My one sister has a daughter, other sis has two daughters, and one brother has two sons. (that's 5)

So then, five begets five. Perfect population management: neither growing nor shrinking, at least as far as our family goes.

The point is that, this is the "zero-population growth model" which is needed, worldwide, and NOW.

I have a hard time even with the Zero Population Growth theory. I mean, maybe back in the 60/70s it was a good idea, but the Zero Population Growth theory still says that people can have offspring (1 for each family.) I think that (and it probably will never happen, but it's an idea of mine,) that the world or major populated/birthing nations should maybe cease having kids all together and maybe let the death rate rise up a bit higher to or a little above the birth rate.

[Klaatu]

I have a hard time even with the Zero Population Growth theory. I mean, maybe back in the 60/70s it was a good idea, but the Zero Population Growth theory still says that people can have offspring (1 for each family.) I think that (and it probably will never happen, but it's an idea of mine,) that the world or major populated/birthing nations should maybe cease having kids all together and maybe let the death rate rise up a bit higher to or a little above the birth rate.

I agree in that world population needs to decrease. But if this is done only at the birthing end, (as is the popular sentiment) there will ultimately be a whole lot of old people being supported by a dwindling amount of young workers (do we want this?) On the other hand, if population is reduced at the death end, it becomes controversial (remember the 70s movie "Logan's Run," where people were exterminated at age 30)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree in that world population needs to decrease. But if this is done only at the birthing end, (as is the popular sentiment) there will ultimately be a whole lot of old people being supported by a dwindling amount of young workers (do we want this?) On the other hand, if population is reduced at the death end, it becomes controversial (remember the 70s movie "Logan's Run," where people were exterminated at age 30)

Sounds like a good argument for developing methods for achieving immortality. Not only would we only need to reproduce in order to replace for accidents and so on, but having an indefinite lifespan would also directly incentivise social, environmental and economic stability, as well as extraterrestrial expansion - Earth will not be inhabitable forever despite our best efforts.

[Magón]

I agree in that world population needs to decrease. But if this is done only at the birthing end, (as is the popular sentiment) there will ultimately be a whole lot of old people being supported by a dwindling amount of young workers (do we want this?) On the other hand, if population is reduced at the death end, it becomes controversial (remember the 70s movie "Logan's Run," where people were exterminated at age 30)

There is no idea that doesn't have it's faults. :) As to whether population control should start at the birthing end, or the old age end, I've never been quite sure myself on which was a better one. I mean, if an old person is no longer able to support themselves, and get the necessary help they need, then it becomes controversial as well, and there was actually a group at my Uni which was for euthanasia of old people no longer able to support themselves, or get the necessary help to do so either. (Which I'm kind of for and opposed to.)

[Vanguard1917]

there was actually a group at my Uni which was for euthanasia of old people no longer able to support themselves, or get the necessary help to do so either. (Which I'm kind of for and opposed to.)

They sound like great guys. But why are you in two minds as to whether you should support their splendid proposal? Surely it's clear cut that we should gather and destroy the elderly? My grandad toiled all his life, but now he's a useless OAP consuming the earth's precious resources with the immense spending power afforded him by the state pension.

Are we really having this discussion? On a 'revolutionary leftist' discussion forum?

[Vanguard1917]

I agree in that world population needs to decrease.

What gave you that idea?

[Magón]

They sound like great guys. But why are you in two minds as to whether you should support their splendid proposal? Surely it's clear cut that we should gather and destroy the elderly? My grandad toiled all his life, but now he's a useless OAP consuming the earth's precious resources with the immense spending power afforded him by the state pension.

Are we really having this discussion? On a 'revolutionary leftist' discussion forum?

I simply just meant why I'm split is because I think it should be, like putting someone to death for creating a crime, a case to case system. The old person might not be unable to support themselves because a person says they're not. But I know old people who have family that can't support them, but can still work, even though no job will take them. Hence why I'm split on the matter. If they're ill, hurt, etc. then I say simply put them out of their misery and let them pass if it's serious enough. (If it's just the common flu or cold, etc. then I say either let them get through it or just let it kill them off.)

[Vanguard1917]

I simply just meant why I'm split is because I think it should be, like putting someone to death for creating a crime, a case to case system. The old person might not be unable to support themselves because a person says they're not. But I know old people who have family that can't support them, but can still work, even though no job will take them. Hence why I'm split on the matter. If they're ill, hurt, etc. then I say simply put them out of their misery and let them pass if it's serious enough. (If it's just the common flu or cold, etc. then I say either let them get through it or just let it kill them off.)

You are a very charming fellow. I agree: let's not fight for better living standards and health care for the elderly - let's just kill 'em off for the sake of the planet.

You nutcase (or troll).

[Magón]

You are a very charming fellow. I agree: let's not fight for better living standards and health care for the elderly - let's just kill 'em off for the sake of the planet.

You nutcase (or troll).

See you're not getting me. I'm not saying you can't give them better living standards or healthcare, I'm just saying that there's a time and limit to someone's ability to be valuable, and think that if they're ill or cannot work for any number of reasons and are unable to get around or be productive in another way, (whether that's going to the park with their grandchildren, or whatnot), they should just be let go for the next person in the world to come along. I don't see why that makes me a nutcase?

I mean, if you were sitting in home alone, your legs no longer able to carry you somewhere, and you're pretty much just confined to your home, would you really want to still be around when there's nobody to come and see how you are or what not? I mean not every old person would want to live in a rest home. When I get old, I sure as hell don't want to be a person in a rest home, and I'm sure most don't want to either.

[bricolage]

I'm just saying that there's a time and limit to someone's ability to be valuable, and think that if they're ill or cannot work for any number of reasons and are unable to get around or be productive in another way, (whether that's going to the park with their grandchildren, or whatnot), they should just be let go for the next person in the world to come along.
At the risk of invoking Godwins Law you are cetainly not the first person in history to think this.

Yet even without that your views would be just as repulsive.

When I get old, I sure as hell don't want to be a person in a rest home, and I'm sure most don't want to either.
No I'm sure noone does and if you are saying that you not wanting to be there means you would want to die then that is different from saying people who are there should die. The problem you address can be countered by improving the quality of rest homes or even doing away with the whole idea of a rest home, working to improve general compassion in society.

If there are those who are elderly, ill, in pain, in misery and so forth and genuinely do not want to live anymore I think there is a case to argue for access to euthanasia. But this is completely different from your proposed cull of the elderly.

[Magón]

At the risk of invoking Godwins Law you are cetainly not the first person in history to think this.

Yet even without that your views would be just as repulsive.

No I'm sure noone does and if you are saying that you not wanting to be there means you would want to die then that is different from saying people who are there should die. The problem you address can be countered by improving the quality of rest homes or even doing away with the whole idea of a rest home, working to improve general compassion in society.

If there are those who are elderly, ill, in pain, in misery and so forth and genuinely do not want to live anymore I think there is a case to argue for access to euthanasia. But this is completely different from your proposed cull of the elderly.

Did you not read my previous posts on the other page? I stated that I am a person who is split on the idea of Euthanasia and think it should really be a case to case problem. Not something that is so written in stone like in todays world. But Vanguard1917 had to take it out of context and say I was all for the execution of the old, so I had to state my position on Euthanasia which you seem to take out of context as well

So please, before you state stupid things like trying to invoke Godwin's Law, see what someone's written before. Thanks.

I'll try and simplify my stance on Euthanasia, so you can get a better understanding.

1. I am a person who is SPLIT on the use of Euthanasia, and think it should be a case to case situational problem. Which I had to state more clearly in my second post on the matter.

2. When I get old, and if my family were to try putting me in a rest home, I'd much rather choose to live my last days outside of a place like that, rather than in one. I'm not saying for all, or all would/do want that, but from me going to a rest home where my grandmother currently lives, she and other elderly people there would have chosen to live at home, rather a place like that. (I even spoke to my family about this matter when it came up, but I was only 17 when it came to the decision and my voice was discarded. Even now nobody cares and they're quite happy Grandma's in the rest home.)

3. If I were to get into a serious accident, or have some sort of medical problem that made me incapable of doing basic things and more, I'd probably choose to die rather live. If I got cancer, it would depend on how serious the cancer was and the probabilities of me beating the thing. If I became a cucumber and just laid in bed all day, unable to feed or clean myself, I'd choose death.

And like I said before, but you seemed to have missed it completely. If the person was seriously ill or injured, it's probably best to put them out of their misery since most people who are in such positions choose to die rather than continue on living and not able to do things they found fun or whatever, even though their family thinks differently and goes against their will.

I never once said I was for the execution of old people, just because they were old. (You seemed to have pulled that out of the air when I said there was a group that was all for that, no exceptions at my Uni. Which I never fully agreed with, as I said in that post.) I said several times because of problems that would make them lack in things they probably found enjoyable was a reason to end their suffering or lack of wanting to live anymore. Like spending time with grandchildren and whatnot, someone who gets sick or injured and can no longer see their grandchildren might want to choose death more than life.

[bailey_187]

Bookchin said our aim to dominate nature is born out of the bourgeois perspective of man dominating man. He was more for a symbiotic relationship, thought it foolish of us to think we could dominate nature. I read 'The Ecology Of Freedom' a while back and he has some different ways of looking at things. I'm still not sure what to think of Bookchin.

And i say the peoples wish for a "symbiotic relationship" is a throwback to a feudalist perspective of relying directly on the nature for subsistance.

Fuck Bookchin. Come at me bro.

[Amphictyonis]

I think reacting to primitivists is counterproductive. If you can't see how the profit motive has driven "negative" industrialization then you need further education surrounding the goals and potential of socialism/communism.

I completely agree with primitiviststs as far as a critique of industrial society UNDER CAPITALISM.

[Amphictyonis]

And i say the peoples wish for a "symbiotic relationship" is a throwback to a feudalist perspective of relying directly on the nature for subsistance.

Fuck Bookchin. Come at me bro.

I'm not Bookchins choirgirl or anything, I simply question our ability to 'dominate' nature. I also question our motivation to do so, this doesn't mean I'm opposed to a global industrial community. Hell, communism/anarchism is impossible without material abundance.

Also, "come at me" sounds like some sort of macho fighting words from the east side of the train tracks. :) I'll go Valerie Solonas on that ass tough guy ;)

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

If you want to fight I'll be more than happy to buy you a beer ;) (we're all socialists here....even the misguided primos)

[Summerspeaker]

Speaking of Solanas, she had a powerful vision of automated industrial abundance and a program of direct action to get there.

[Ele'ill]

I just want to say that I would find living in a world plagued by mass extinctions simply so I and my children's children etc can live- pathetic, unacceptable, selfish, and I would rather die then engage in a socialist future without more of an intact biosphere than what we currently have.

I'd like to see the rainforest repair itself I'd like to see the oceans begin to repair themselves so on and so forth-

If that means restricting aluminum smelts (random example not based on any proposed facts) until there's an alternative that's clean then perhaps that's what needs to be done.

It's odd that some people get up at arms when a group of people exploits their own species for personal gain but when humans as a species exploit other species and their ecosystems and even entire planets for their personal gains (which are often for pleasure industries and not for survival) it's considered 'human progress'.