Why the hatred for anarcho primitivists? [Archive]

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th November 2010, 00:09

Technocrat

15th November 2010, 00:11

Oh I see I've seen that term used too often with the new wave of people "going green" with their hybrids and shit.

Yeah, I think what you are talking about is more accurately termed "Greenwashing":

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

Those dumb yuppies are the victims of slick advertising.

Sosa

15th November 2010, 00:12

People, here is a very simple argument that anyone should be able to understand:

A) The Green Revolution uses chemical fertilizers that are derived exclusively from non-renewable resources, primarily fossil fuels.
B) Therefore, the Green Revolution is not sustainable.
C) The population of the planet was less than 2 billion people prior to the Green Revolution
D) Therefore, the maximum sustainable population for the planet is less than 2 billion people
E) The current population of the planet is more than 6 billion people
F) Therefore, the planet is over-populated

Yes, the world is over-populated!

No it's not. Right now the entire world population could fit comfortable in the state of Texas.

"According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth."

"Since overpopulation isn't the cause of hunger, "fixing" overpopulation won't fix these problems. In fact, the obsession with overpopulation often leads to precious aid money being spent on population control rather than real aid. "Family planning" programs miss the real point, especially in places like Africa--which is that the people need legitimate, concrete aid. People who are hungry and thirsty need food and water, not population control."

http://esa.un.org/unpp/

Technocrat

15th November 2010, 00:13

Bollocks. What we need is Green Revolution 2.0 - i.e. the widespread adaptation of revolutionary new agricultural practices such as vertical farming and hydroponics, which will allow us to produce more food with less land and without fossil-fuel derived fertilisers. It'll also allow food to be grown closer to where it is consumed.

"Overpopulation" is a stupid misanthropic meme that needs to die already.

Please note that I cannot work with a technology that doesn't yet exist.

Vertical farming etc all require MORE resources than any of the methods currently employed, AFAIK.

Hydroponics still requires the use of chemical based fertilizers - even moreso than currently employed methods.

hydroponics and aeroponics basically takes the roots of the plant and keeps it in either a chemical-water soup or mist.

Please explain the methods by which we will produce more food using less fertilizer.

The idea of an infinitely growing population on a finite planet is a logical impossibility. A basic understanding of physics will show us why the idea of a flight into space is currently NOT a solution to the problem of limited resources (though it might be a solution to other problems).

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th November 2010, 00:15

Please note that I cannot work with a technology that doesn't yet exist.

Vertical farming etc all require MORE resources than any of the methods currently employed, AFAIK.

You only need to build a vertical farm once, but you have to keep fertilising a massive monoculture field. We're not likely to run out of glass, steel and concrete any time soon, compared to oil. The environment of a vertical farm is a lot more controllable, thus higher yields are more easily obtained. Because they are enclosed, one can keep pests out and if they do get in, close off the contaminated sections and clear them out. More yield again.

There is also a lot of efficiency savings to be made once the food is already grown. We grow enough food for twelve billion people yet food is still wasted on a staggering scale.

Technocrat

15th November 2010, 00:17

No it's not. Right now the entire world population could fit comfortable in the state of Texas.

"According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth."

"Since overpopulation isn't the cause of hunger, "fixing" overpopulation won't fix these problems. In fact, the obsession with overpopulation often leads to precious aid money being spent on population control rather than real aid. "Family planning" programs miss the real point, especially in places like Africa--which is that the people need legitimate, concrete aid. People who are hungry and thirsty need food and water, not population control."

http://esa.un.org/unpp/

Note that the argument I offered has nothing to do with available space, but with available food. You haven't addressed the argument I offered!

The "available space" argument is one of the dumber arguments, since people do not just require space, but food, housing, medical care, entertainment, transportation, etc - all of which require resources that necessarily lay outside of the individuals dwelling space, unless you believe that food materializes in the refrigerator, water is manufactured directly at the tap, electricity to power your home materializes in the power line whenever the switch is flipped, etc

Technocrat

15th November 2010, 00:19

You only need to build a vertical farm once, but you have to keep fertilising a massive monoculture field. We're not likely to run out of glass, steel and concrete any time soon, compared to oil.

Vertical farms are massive hydroponics compounds that require inputs of chemically-based fertilizers that are derived from non-renewable resources, primarily fossil fuels! There is presently no other methods of obtaining these chemical fertilizers. Basing our future existence as a species on technologies that may never exist seems a bit foolhardy, IMHO.

Sosa

15th November 2010, 00:21

Note that the argument I offered has nothing to do with available space, but with available food. You haven't addressed the argument I offered!

the world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th November 2010, 00:22

Vertical farms are massive hydroponics compounds that require inputs of chemically-based fertilizers that are derived from non-renewable resources, primarily fossil fuels! There is presently no other methods of obtaining these chemical fertilizers.

Rubbish. Cities literally produce rivers of sewage on a daily basis, in addition to to the lakes of muck that livestock produce. That's a good source of fertiliser right there. It's also a good source of methane, which can substitute for oil.

Ovi

15th November 2010, 00:45

I hate them because they're ideology is fucking stupid, they're against human progress therefore reactionary and just plain idiotic. Plus, Anarcho-Primitivists shouldn't even be on the internet because they're against technology.
By that reason, neither should you. Your internet access is provided by a private company. You should also not buy anything since almost everything is produced by private companies and you shouldn't work because that would be giving in to the capitalist oppressors.

Then again, I think the fundamental problem is that Socialism is fundamentally pro-human, while primativism is pro-nature.

Fuck nature.
Not really. There isn't any separate nature from us that we need to protect. We are part of it. Any negative action upon it, will have a negative impact upon us, whether its health problems, decreasing diversity, or using unsustainable practices. We need to balance our actions so that it is beneficial to us, instead of harmful. Primitivism isn't anti-human, pro-nature, but it has a different conception of how much human activity is harmful to humanity itself. I don't think that technology is necessarily harmful, though the way it is used today it shows a different story. Take for instance the so much proclaimed modern medicine. With all the research, advanced technology and the much higher survival rate in the US, cancer death rate is smaller in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malignant_neoplasms_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2004.svg). Part of that is caused by the somewhat larger life expectancy, but negative environmental factors present in a highly developed country are probably also a large part of it.

Bollocks. What we need is Green Revolution 2.0 - i.e. the widespread adaptation of revolutionary new agricultural practices such as vertical farming and hydroponics, which will allow us to produce more food with less land and without fossil-fuel derived fertilisers. It'll also allow food to be grown closer to where it is consumed.

"Overpopulation" is a stupid misanthropic meme that needs to die already.
It is doubtful whether the enormous labor, building materials and energy use compared to traditional agriculture would improve our lives, whether it's sustainable or even possible, but that's a subject for another thread.

Technocrat

15th November 2010, 00:52

Rubbish. Cities literally produce rivers of sewage on a daily basis, in addition to to the lakes of muck that livestock produce. That's a good source of fertiliser right there. It's also a good source of methane, which can substitute for oil.

Do I really need to explain why the methane produced by a city cannot possibly replace all the energy used by a city? Why our shit cannot possibly replace oil? We've all seen Beyond Thunderdome. Also, chemical-based fertilizers are derived from fossil fuels in a way that is not dependent upon energy. In other words, you cannot substitute some other energy source for the process of making chemical fertilizers and still make chemical fertilizers without fossil fuels. It isn't the energy of fossil fuels that is required by chemical fertilizers, its the fossil fuels themselves (namely oil).

Yes, recycling waste is one way of obtaining fertilizer, but note that my argument was that the green revolution was not sustainable, not that there weren't other methods of obtaining fertilizer.

The problem is over-farming the land (usually by mono-cropping cereals) so that chemical fertilizers are needed to make up for the lost nutrients.

If we used traditional methods that existed prior to the green revolution, such as

A) crop rotation
B) recycling waste

we might have a sustainable agricultural system.

Now, these methods were ALREADY employed prior to the green revolution. China, for example, recycled waste (including human) for thousands of years, and also practiced crop rotation. As a result, they have farmed the same soil for thousands of years without depleting the soil of nutrients.

However, the above doesn't mean that you can simply swap in methods A) and B) for the methods used by the Green Revolution and support a population that grows without limits.

Here is the problem: the green revolution allowed us to produce more food than we could sustainably produce.

Simplified model of how food works: nutrients in soil feed plants. Plants grow. We eat plants (or some animal eats plants that we then eat). IF we return waste to the soil, those nutrients which were consumed can be returned to the soil and the process repeated indefinitely.

The problem is this: there is a limited amount of nutrients naturally existing in the soil in the first place! So, even if they are recycled indefinitely, you are limited by the amount that existed to begin with. The limiting factor is the amount of nutrients naturally existing in the soil in the first place. If we add chemicals, we can increase production by an unsustainable amount. Once the source of chemicals is gone, you can only support the amount that could be supported if you weren't to use those chemicals.

Therefore, you can only support the number of people capable of being supported prior to the use of those chemicals.

Therefore, the maximum sustainable population capable of being supported is less than 2 billion people.

I dunno If I've provided a thorough enough proof. I've been moving all my shit into a new apartment all day and I'm fucking tired and I've already started drinking.

You know me and know that I am not a primitivist. I would only advocate for a reduced population if I thought it was the only way to attain the maximum well being the maximum number of people. I also understand that it may seem odd at first glance to argue for a reduced population and at the same time advocate for the maximum well-being for the maximum number of people, but I think you and other critical thinkers will at least see the possible basis for such an argument

Sentinel

15th November 2010, 00:57

Plus, Anarcho-Primitivists shouldn't even be on the internet because they're against technology.

For all their lunacy, their justification for this is logical enough; they are using technology to spread their propaganda, in order to 'bring the system down from within' -- much in the same way that some revolutionary leftists use bourgeois elections.

I'm a bit surprised that we don't have a single apologist in this thread yet. We've had some quite exhausting debates over this, and over whether some 'green anarchist' member actually is a primitivist, after explicitly saying that technology is bad and that we should go back to this or that stage of development.

Primitivists are hardly a threat politically for natural reasons -- most people want to live, and if they got their way most people would die. The only thing we really have to fear is one of them getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction, deadly viruses etc, but not even that is very likely. They are however the kind of people the serious left does not want to associate with, if we are to have any credibility at all.

As for the reason to why they are restricted here, it's basically the same that for all the others ie cappies, misogynists etc; in order to maintain a meaningful and progressive discussion atmosphere, we just can't have people with diametrically opposed views posting on the main board.

Think about it; their answer to everything is that civilisation either must be destroyed, or will self-destruct. It only takes one unrestricted primitivist to troll every interesting thread in any forum really, with their bullshit to the degree that any chance to have a meaningful discussion would be gone.

Especially Sciences & Environment might as well be closed if the policy was to be removed. :ohmy:

Sosa

15th November 2010, 01:05

Yeah but the population is not growing without limits...over the next thirty years population will only increase by 1 billion, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline.

http://esa.un.org/unpp/

PilesOfDeadNazis

15th November 2010, 01:09

Sosa

15th November 2010, 01:12

no thinking (sane) person would want to live in a world as backwards as what a primitivist envisions

Sentinel

15th November 2010, 01:14

PilesOfDeadNazis

15th November 2010, 01:21

The most absurd thing about primitivist ideology (and the competition in that field is intense :lol:) is that if they actually succeeded, the survivors would inevitably directly start rebuilding technogical civilisation around the world, from scratch if needed..

As far as I know, none of them has come up with a coherent answer to how to prevent this from happening.
I actually know an Anarcho-Primitivist(I know, right?), and he swears that the people wouldn't want change. They will forever be happy, without needing any technological/societal progress.

Of course, this is just not true in any way, shape or form. Once again, humans will fall victim to mass pestilence, famine, and being worked like slaves(no machines to cover any of the dirty work, whatsoever).

He pretty much relies on conspiracy theories to explain how diseases and such are created by the government or other filthy Technocrats.

Paulappaul

15th November 2010, 01:33

Plus, Anarcho-Primitivists shouldn't even be on the internet because they're against technology.

Frankly that's the same logic used by the bourgeois. If you hate Capitalism, why do you live in a Capitalistic country, surviving through Capitalistic means?

You should just go move to island and set up a hippie commune :rolleyes:

Fact of the matter is, we are reluctant paticpants in a Capitalistic society in the same means that Primitivists are reluctant particpants in things like the internet, cars, showers (not so many Primitivists) and Modern Medicine.

Amphictyonis

15th November 2010, 01:35

Or maybe they are starving because globally tons of food are thrown away everyday to sustain prices?

I just picked up a freezer full of food from the dumpster behind the local market. Frozen microwave "Hungry Man" meals and burritos. It was kinda existing because we were drunk and felt like we found a treasure. Took a video of the guys doing flips into the dumpster. This thing was full of unopened frozen food. From top to bottom. Huge dumpster.

Anyway, anarcho primo's lack the ability to separate capitalist environmental destruction from a possible future sustainable socialist industrial society. They have SOME good points IF they were only criticizing environmental destruction under capitalism.

Ovi

15th November 2010, 01:35

Ovi

15th November 2010, 01:43

Therefore, the maximum sustainable population capable of being supported is less than 2 billion people.
Never heard that before. Is there any reference? Polyculture is actually more productive than monoculture, so the yields through sustainable agriculture might even be higher than those of intensive agriculture.

Technocrat

15th November 2010, 02:24

Never heard that before. Is there any reference? Polyculture is actually more productive than monoculture, so the yields through sustainable agriculture might even be higher than those of intensive agriculture.

If the population was 2 billion before the use of chemicals, then it will be 2 billion after the use of those chemicals - especially as they (those nutrients) are not currently recycled but pissed away (dispersed) into the environment such that they can't be recovered.

A number of people have looked at this problem from a number of different angles, but all seem to have settled on a figure of around 1-2 billion for a sustainable population with a decent standard of living.

I have yet to see a solid refutation of the following paper - if anything his estimates of exosomatic energy are quite optimistic, meaning population estimates should be lower.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

Polyculture has higher yields but soil productivity is the main issue, and the soil can only produce so much before the nutrients are depleted faster than they are replenished (through any method of nutrient recycling).

We can also take an entirely different approach from the above, and look at the issue from the angle of ecological footprint. EP analysis will give us a similar figure - 2 billion people living at a decent standard of living.

Ele'ill

15th November 2010, 02:30

Primitivism as a critique is valid as we've only seen its critique of modern industrial affect. Primitivism when working with other seemingly opposite progressive ideologies can work as seen in that one thread that I can't remember the link for.

The worst primitivist solutions and methods to engage those solutions are vile and completely incompetent. They strike me as solutions that involve a small group of friends living happily alone from the rest of the world (because everyone else is dead)

Summerspeaker

15th November 2010, 02:42

The primitivists I know might as well be just anarchists/communists in practice. They present a solid critique of capitalism, statism, racism, male supremacy, and so on. As ridiculous as the long-term vision is, throwing animosity their way supports the status quo more than anything else at this juncture.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th November 2010, 02:42

Do I really need to explain why the methane produced by a city cannot possibly replace all the energy used by a city? Why our shit cannot possibly replace oil? We've all seen Beyond Thunderdome.

Biogas doesn't have to replace oil completely; it only has to replace oil where other energy sources cannot.

However, the above doesn't mean that you can simply swap in methods A) and B) for the methods used by the Green Revolution and support a population that grows without limits.

Nobody said that we needed to. Population growth is slowing globally, and in certain countries birthrates are below replacement level and have been for some time now.

If we want to keep the current trends as they are, or accelerate them in a more benign direction, we are going to have to spend money to save money, in other words there needs to be a global effort to raise living standards and improve education, especially for women, since those are correlated with low birthrates.

Here is the problem: the green revolution allowed us to produce more food than we could sustainably produce.

Simplified model of how food works: nutrients in soil feed plants. Plants grow. We eat plants (or some animal eats plants that we then eat). IF we return waste to the soil, those nutrients which were consumed can be returned to the soil and the process repeated indefinitely.

The problem is this: there is a limited amount of nutrients naturally existing in the soil in the first place! So, even if they are recycled indefinitely, you are limited by the amount that existed to begin with. The limiting factor is the amount of nutrients naturally existing in the soil in the first place. If we add chemicals, we can increase production by an unsustainable amount. Once the source of chemicals is gone, you can only support the amount that could be supported if you weren't to use those chemicals.

Therefore, you can only support the number of people capable of being supported prior to the use of those chemicals.

Therefore, the maximum sustainable population capable of being supported is less than 2 billion people.

I don't agree at all. We have more people and livestock producing more sewage, and this is a resource that is currently scandalously under-utilised. The stuff that we and our animals shit out is either expensively treated for the benefit of a well-off minority or is simply pumped into the nearest handy body of water. All that nitrogen and phosphorous that humans and animals take in with their food has come out the other end sometime - why not take advantage of that fact?

I dunno If I've provided a thorough enough proof. I've been moving all my shit into a new apartment all day and I'm fucking tired and I've already started drinking.

You know me and know that I am not a primitivist. I would only advocate for a reduced population if I thought it was the only way to attain the maximum well being the maximum number of people. I also understand that it may seem odd at first glance to argue for a reduced population and at the same time advocate for the maximum well-being for the maximum number of people, but I think you and other critical thinkers will at least see the possible basis for such an argument

I see what you're saying, but I disagree as to where the limits lie. You seem to be under the impression that the best we can do after the Green Revolution is... returning to the way things were done before. C'mon, we're more clever and imaginative than that, and in terms of raw resources most of the ones that aren't effectively limitless can be recycled indefinately.

Summerspeaker

15th November 2010, 02:52

If we want to keep the current trends as they are, or accelerate them in a more benign direction, we are going to have to spend money to save money, in other words there needs to be a global effort to raise living standards and improve education, especially for women, since those are correlated with low birthrates.

This. Plus feminist revolution, of course. :)

WeAreReborn

15th November 2010, 04:24

How progressive of you. Do you also "agree" with modern medicine?
Kind of rude. We all changed are opinions, at one point in time you were probably pro-Capitalism, that doesn't mean we should respect you any less.

Then again, I think the fundamental problem is that Socialism is fundamentally pro-human, while primativism is pro-nature.

Fuck nature.

This is foolish in itself, at least the last part. I feel you should find a balance between technology and nature, or at least not completely demolish the earth in the process of advancing humanity. I personally am not too interested in new technologies as much as the average guy, but I do see the futility and flaws in primitivism but I suppose it kinda is just like a guilty day dream so to speak. But pro-technology and anti-nature is just destructive and irresponsible. So you should put humans in front of plants but destroying nature then can become destructive in the future. You should probably take a stance similar to Noxion where it is technology that is sustainable. To me that is the most responsible and the most intelligent approach to this situation.

Technocrat

15th November 2010, 07:23

I see what you're saying, but I disagree as to where the limits lie. You seem to be under the impression that the best we can do after the Green Revolution is... returning to the way things were done before. C'mon, we're more clever and imaginative than that, and in terms of raw resources most of the ones that aren't effectively limitless can be recycled indefinately.

Population increased from 2 billion to 6 billion through the use of fossil-fuel derived fertilizers (nutrients).

Those nutrients were consumed and then dispersed into the environment (i.e., not recycled, i.e., pissed away).

So, you now have a 4 billion person nutrient shortfall.

If we had been recycling those chemically derived nutrients this whole time, we wouldn't be in this problem now. The problem is an unsustainable increase in population resulting from unsustainable agricultural practices (adding fossil-fuel derived nutrients which are then dispersed and lost in the environment).

Where are the additional nutrients going to come from to feed those 4 billion people if the nutrients are constantly being pissed away? As soon as the non-renewable source of chemical nutrients are exhausted, all the population increase that has taken place since the use of the chemical nutrients began becomes unsustainable. Since we do not recycle 100pc of the fossil fuel-derived nutrients that we use, and since population has expanded as a result of using these fossil-fuel derived nutrients, a shortfall is inevitable.

I don't know if that made sense or not, It's late and I've been drinking.

Ovi

15th November 2010, 08:50

If the population was 2 billion before the use of chemicals, then it will be 2 billion after the use of those chemicals - especially as they (those nutrients) are not currently recycled but pissed away (dispersed) into the environment such that they can't be recovered.

A number of people have looked at this problem from a number of different angles, but all seem to have settled on a figure of around 1-2 billion for a sustainable population with a decent standard of living.

I have yet to see a solid refutation of the following paper - if anything his estimates of exosomatic energy are quite optimistic, meaning population estimates should be lower.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

Polyculture has higher yields but soil productivity is the main issue, and the soil can only produce so much before the nutrients are depleted faster than they are replenished (through any method of nutrient recycling).

We can also take an entirely different approach from the above, and look at the issue from the angle of ecological footprint. EP analysis will give us a similar figure - 2 billion people living at a decent standard of living.
Much of the soils used for agriculture have already been depleted of nutrients and you can't grow much without artificial fertilizers. However there is still a chance for fixing that for now. Out of the 6 plant macro nutrients, the only one which is not abundant in seawater or air is phosphorus. The current reserves will last somewhere around a century and if we switch towards sustainable agriculture in the following years, instead of continuing to waste phosphorus, we might be able to enrich the soil back to the necessary P levels that allows agriculture to sustain itself indefinitely.
I haven't fully read that article yet, but about fossil fuels vs solar energy, the total amount of solar power for every 1.8 acres of land (which is the land available to grow food for each US citizen) is 150-200 times the usage of the average US citizen. So no, we don't have to use fossil fuel to grow our food.

Ovi

15th November 2010, 08:56

Where are the additional nutrients going to come from to feed those 4 billion people if the nutrients are constantly being pissed away? As soon as the non-renewable source of chemical nutrients are exhausted, all the population increase that has taken place since the use of the chemical nutrients began becomes unsustainable. Since we do not recycle 100pc of the fossil fuel-derived nutrients that we use, and since population has expanded as a result of using these fossil-fuel derived nutrients, a shortfall is inevitable.

If we wait until the phosphorus reserves (it is phosphorus that agriculture depends for fertilizers, not fossil fuels) run out, we'll all be fucked. The current depleted soils would probably not even provide food for 2 billion people if we were to switch back to sustainable agriculture without first enriching the soil back.

Amphictyonis

15th November 2010, 10:04

Would things like this exist in a industrial communist society? I think not. Half the stuff in dumps and packed in peoples garages across the western world is, well, shit no one needs or even wants past a few days of initial interest. The sort of materialism capitalism creates is in fact unsustainable.

qMY10mVnDyk

Freedom has been redefined as the freedom to be conned into buying a bunch of shit no one needs. That equation creates freedom but not for the average consumer- it creates freedom for the capitalist. There is a more rational way to look at material abundance. The demand for commodities is created by capitalists. Just look at all of the idiots wearing these-

h77llOdRVcI

There's much more to criticize as far as capitalist industry supply/demand and wasteful consumerism.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th November 2010, 13:50

Population increased from 2 billion to 6 billion through the use of fossil-fuel derived fertilizers (nutrients).

Those nutrients were consumed and then dispersed into the environment (i.e., not recycled, i.e., pissed away).

So, you now have a 4 billion person nutrient shortfall.

So what is it that's currently nourishing those extra 4 billion people as well as billions of livestock animals? I agree that we can't keep doing this forever, but that doesn't mean we can't make a transition to a sustainable way of keeping what we have in circulation - it's not like all the oil-derived nutrients are going to just disappear, especially if we take steps to recover them.

If we had been recycling those chemically derived nutrients this whole time, we wouldn't be in this problem now. The problem is an unsustainable increase in population resulting from unsustainable agricultural practices (adding fossil-fuel derived nutrients which are then dispersed and lost in the environment).

Where are the additional nutrients going to come from to feed those 4 billion people if the nutrients are constantly being pissed away? As soon as the non-renewable source of chemical nutrients are exhausted, all the population increase that has taken place since the use of the chemical nutrients began becomes unsustainable. Since we do not recycle 100pc of the fossil fuel-derived nutrients that we use, and since population has expanded as a result of using these fossil-fuel derived nutrients, a shortfall is inevitable.

I don't know if that made sense or not, It's late and I've been drinking.

Yes, but that shortfall has yet to arrive. In the meanwhile there is still time for us to change things without having two thirds of the world's population starve to death.

Ele'ill

15th November 2010, 16:50

This is one of the better threads on the topic because there's critical debate within the technate. (about time)

I am a green anarchist (whatever that means) and I like some of the ideas technocracy brings to the table. I think it would make how I want to live much easier than it is now.

Technocrat

16th November 2010, 02:53

So what is it that's currently nourishing those extra 4 billion people as well as billions of livestock animals? I agree that we can't keep doing this forever, but that doesn't mean we can't make a transition to a sustainable way of keeping what we have in circulation - it's not like all the oil-derived nutrients are going to just disappear, especially if we take steps to recover them.

Yes, but that shortfall has yet to arrive. In the meanwhile there is still time for us to change things without having two thirds of the world's population starve to death.

This is just one side of a multi-faceted problem. Even if you solve the food issue there are still all the other resources people currently consume to have a "good life." People consume more than just food.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can only support so many people with a given standard of living (per capita consumption).

If that standard of living is around an American WWII era standard of living, then about 1-2 billion people could be supported.

Basically, people will have to walk or take public transportation instead of driving everywhere. Dwellings will need to be smaller and more efficient (compared to modern American standards). More people will have to live in apartments instead of suburban bungalows. Meat will have to be consumed less frequently. Most food will need to be produced within 100-200 miles of where it is consumed. Consumer goods will need to be more durable. Alternative energy technologies and sustainable agricultural practices have to be implemented. BTW, there are not enough resources on the planet to convert America's energy supply to off-grid solar power (not enough resources for the batteries). Solar thermal power might be an option but a smart grid has to be built so that power can be transferred where it is needed, since storage is not really an option. Even with all of the above changes, you are looking at a max sustainable population of around 2 billion people. This is assuming equal per-capita consumption for all the world's citizens, which is necessary in order to attain justice and peace. I talk to a lot of environmental scientists and similar types and many of them think that 2 billion is wildly optimistic.

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

You can find an ecological footprint calculator online by just googling "ecological footprint calculator". You can use one to see how many people could be supported with a given standard of living. The standard of living necessary to support 6 billion people is quite austere. But then, we could support 12 billion sustainably if the standard of living was equal to Mumbai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dharavi_Slum_in_Mumbai.jpg)'s.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th November 2010, 13:10

This is just one side of a multi-faceted problem. Even if you solve the food issue there are still all the other resources people currently consume to have a "good life." People consume more than just food.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can only support so many people with a given standard of living (per capita consumption).

If that standard of living is around an American WWII era standard of living, then about 1-2 billion people could be supported.

Basically, people will have to walk or take public transportation instead of driving everywhere. Dwellings will need to be smaller and more efficient (compared to modern American standards).

That's exactly the problem I have with the 2 billion maximum. It uses the extravagantly wasteful standards currently used in the US as a baseline - of course we cannot support 7+ billion people on that! So it won't happen whether we sort ourselves out or not.

More people will have to live in apartments instead of suburban bungalows. Meat will have to be consumed less frequently. Most food will need to be produced within 100-200 miles of where it is consumed. Consumer goods will need to be more durable. Alternative energy technologies and sustainable agricultural practices have to be implemented. BTW, there are not enough resources on the planet to convert America's energy supply to off-grid solar power (not enough resources for the batteries). Solar thermal power might be an option but a smart grid has to be built so that power can be transferred where it is needed, since storage is not really an option. Even with all of the above changes, you are looking at a max sustainable population of around 2 billion people. This is assuming equal per-capita consumption for all the world's citizens, which is necessary in order to attain justice and peace.

How do you factor in the enormous savings in energy and materials consumption brought about by the end of commercialism and deliberately wasteful practices carried out to preserve economic integrity at the cost of general availability? For example, instead of wasting resources printing disks, manuals, and making the paper and plastic for the cases then transporting them to shops, computer games could be freely available over the internet, reducing the material cost in production of a single example to the electricity needed to run a computer.

I talk to a lot of environmental scientists and similar types and many of them think that 2 billion is wildly optimistic.

But like you, their imaginations seem limited by current production methods and practices. Solving these kind of problems requires the expertise of more than just environmental scientists - we also need scientists and engineers involved in such things as process management, transportation, materials science, food science, agriculture, etc etc etc. Their knowledge and labour has so far been successfully used to create profit in vast quantities - I suspect that were their considerable skill turned towards more humanising efforts they would be just as successful if not more so.

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

You can find an ecological footprint calculator online by just googling "ecological footprint calculator". You can use one to see how many people could be supported with a given standard of living. The standard of living necessary to support 6 billion people is quite austere. But then, we could support 12 billion sustainably if the standard of living was equal to Mumbai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dharavi_Slum_in_Mumbai.jpg)'s.

Actually, slum living is just as unsustainable. One has no time for environmentalism and process efficiency when one isn't sure where the next meal is coming from.

Dimentio

17th November 2010, 13:35

While I no longer associate myself with primitivist ideas, I don't understand the disdain for them on RevLeft. When I was looking at the guidelines for "Opposing Ideologies" I saw that it was for right-wingers, capitalists, preachers, primitivists, and other restricted members.

I used to consider myself an Anarcho-Communist/Primitivist, but I agree with agriculture.

Because anarcho-primitivists are hypocrites or naive idealists.

Earth during the hunter-gatherer stadium of human evolution could sustain about 5-10 million people as a maximum. The agricultural society could sustain about 1 billion people, with the help from domesticated animals and crops and some passive technology like mills and metal tools.

What I cannot respect with primitivists is their mystification of nature and their demonisation of technology, which is basically akin to the "noble savage" myth of Rousseau and books like "The Last Mohican". It is also having overtones of "the lost paradise" and knowledge as the original sin.

Primitivists usually depict post-technological Earth as a hippie paradise with free love, where everyone are hugging one another and having sex freely in plain view, without any shame or taboos, with the sense of alienation gone and mankind once again being an integral part of nature.

The truth is that nature is a harsh mistress.

The only primitivist I could respect is Pentti Linkola, because he 1) has created a realistic estimation of how a primitivist society could be organised, and 2) is entirely open with his hatred and contempt for all of humanity and wants humanity to live in suffering and misery. Such brutal honesty ought to be respected.

http://www.tuomioja.org/images/linkola.jpg

Moreover, he is one of the least extreme of the primitivists. He just wants to return to the 18th century in terms of technological development, which still would require genocide upon most of Earth's current population.

Shortly speaking, anarcho-primitivists either are hypocrites or don't really want to institute their own ideology upon the world, but just flaunting it as a kind of lofty ideal to show their moral superiority to everyone.

RED DAVE

17th November 2010, 18:06

http://www.tuomioja.org/images/linkola.jpg

He also has terrible taste in shirts. :D

And anyway, how many cotton plants died for his sins. He should be naked!

RED DAVE

ed miliband

17th November 2010, 18:49

There's a former anarcho-primitivist on another forum that I use. The crux of his "theory" was that anarchism = no government, no government = chaos, chaos = death, and death = no people, and so it seems that for years he was calling himself an anarchist because he thought it would result in millions of people dying. He's now some sort of weird Republican-Malthusian-neo-liberal who hates poor people.

maskerade

17th November 2010, 21:10

I have nothing against anarcho-primitivists, as long as they don't want to enforce their beliefs upon others (which, unfortunately, they do). The reasons for this have already been stated - mass genocide etc.

However, I think we should protect alternative ways of living which do exist out there, such as hunter-gatherers. The San Bushmen do not want to be a part of the global capitalist system, and their way of living should be decided by them and no one else. Maybe in the socialist future there will be medical outposts for them to use when they get ill, etc (if they would accept such a thing) but they should not be forcefully relocated from their traditional homes (which is the current policy of the Botswana government).

I'm by no means a cultural relativist, but I do believe that ethnocide is a serious problem. Peoples' cultures should be free to develop in a communist/socialist society, and if this means that certain technologies are rejected, so be it.

Maybe this is because of my misunderstanding of technocracy (or rather transhumanism, which always seems to follow the former) - I don't want the planet to turn into a giant computer.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th November 2010, 21:32

I'm by no means a cultural relativist, but I do believe that ethnocide is a serious problem. Peoples' cultures should be free to develop in a communist/socialist society, and if this means that certain technologies are rejected, so be it.

"Certain technologies" such as what? It's not clear how any technology could automatically lead to ethnocide without any possibility of the technology being deployed in a more humane manner.

Maybe this is because of my misunderstanding of technocracy (or rather transhumanism, which always seems to follow the former) - I don't want the planet to turn into a giant computer.

Transhumanists don't necessarily want to turn the Earth into a giant computer.

Dimentio

17th November 2010, 21:36

L.A.P.

17th November 2010, 21:39

What the fuck are the anti-overpopulation people *****ing about anyways. People are having less kids therefore the world population will most likely go down, this is already happening in Japan.

maskerade

17th November 2010, 21:41

"Certain technologies" such as what? It's not clear how any technology could automatically lead to ethnocide without any possibility of the technology being deployed in a more humane manner.

Transhumanists don't necessarily want to turn the Earth into a giant computer.

True, there is a difference between the careless way certain environments are being destroyed under the current system and the various alternatives which could be used.

But I was speaking (perhaps chauvinistically) on behalf of groups of people who would reject technology altogether - if there ever comes to a point where large areas of the kalahari desert can somehow be transformed into arable land, for example, what does one do? Displace the inhabitants of such an environment or let them be, along with the consequences of not transforming the land?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

18th November 2010, 01:27

True, there is a difference between the careless way certain environments are being destroyed under the current system and the various alternatives which could be used.

But I was speaking (perhaps chauvinistically) on behalf of groups of people who would reject technology altogether - if there ever comes to a point where large areas of the kalahari desert can somehow be transformed into arable land, for example, what does one do? Displace the inhabitants of such an environment or let them be, along with the consequences of not transforming the land?

If we ever get good enough to be able to turn very marginal land such as the Kalahari into arable land, we'll have plenty of other places in which to do so.

Nevertheless, it's not so much that desert being to turned into farmland is the issue - indeed, the opposite problem is the case - the real problem is people being forcibly moved from their homes, which can happen to anyone, not just hunter-gatherers.

Redliberation

18th November 2010, 12:34

To all of you who fear an overpopulated world:

The population in Europe grew fast when the mortality rate suddenly dropped (better medicine etc.), but soon the population rate dropped, too. The world population will not grow forever - when the population reaches a higher standard of living, it gets normal for women to work, you don't need your children as workers etc.. in short: if a country gets industrialized the fertility rate drops too. Without immigrants, most of the Western World would shrink.

This will happen in the developing countries too if we (/they with our help) manage to industrialize their societies. As this is vital in establishing a proletarian dictatorship (what proletarian dictatorship would it be without any proletarians?) it should be something we have to keep an eye on anyways.

Oh, and by the way: I heard at the university that there has been a forecast in the 18th or 19th century that the world could be populated by 15 billion people! And he said that without knowing which agricultural improvements would be made in the 19th/20th century.

ComradeOm

18th November 2010, 13:28

What the fuck are the anti-overpopulation people *****ing about anyways. People are having less kids therefore the world population will most likely go down, this is already happening in Japan.Yes, population has largely stabilised in the developed world. There is however a deeply racist slant to most Western proponents of curtailing population growth. The problem is not that there are too many Germans or Italians in the world today, it's that those damned Africans and Asians won't stop having children

vader

18th November 2010, 13:47

In my opinion, overpopulation problem does not concern us yet, we have enough resources to produce goods for all. Prevention of overpopulation should be based on promoting birth control, family planning and anti-theism, not on abolition of technology that just allows better and more efficient production of goods for a large number of people.

Vanguard1917

18th November 2010, 13:47

What the fuck are the anti-overpopulation people *****ing about anyways. People are having less kids therefore the world population will most likely go down, this is already happening in Japan.

Not that the world is anywhere near to being "overpopulated", of course. In fact the earth is overall a highly sparsely-populated place as far as human beings are concerned. It would be a good thing for the human population to expand and make habitable and developed far more of the earth's land. We could perhaps start by building homes on the "green belt" that surrounds London. Only a tenth of Britain's land is currently built upon.

revolution inaction

18th November 2010, 16:30

Transhumanists don't necessarily want to turn the Earth into a giant computer.

it does sound awesome though :thumbup1:

gorillafuck

18th November 2010, 18:36

And it seems to me that a shitload of people in this world are starving, it doesn't look like there are enough resources for everyone.
There is easily enough food though. The problem is distribution.

The Douche

18th November 2010, 20:59

Because anarcho-primitivists are hypocrites or naive idealists.

Earth during the hunter-gatherer stadium of human evolution could sustain about 5-10 million people as a maximum. The agricultural society could sustain about 1 billion people, with the help from domesticated animals and crops and some passive technology like mills and metal tools.

What I cannot respect with primitivists is their mystification of nature and their demonisation of technology, which is basically akin to the "noble savage" myth of Rousseau and books like "The Last Mohican". It is also having overtones of "the lost paradise" and knowledge as the original sin.

Primitivists usually depict post-technological Earth as a hippie paradise with free love, where everyone are hugging one another and having sex freely in plain view, without any shame or taboos, with the sense of alienation gone and mankind once again being an integral part of nature.

The truth is that nature is a harsh mistress.

The only primitivist I could respect is Pentti Linkola, because he 1) has created a realistic estimation of how a primitivist society could be organised, and 2) is entirely open with his hatred and contempt for all of humanity and wants humanity to live in suffering and misery. Such brutal honesty ought to be respected.

http://www.tuomioja.org/images/linkola.jpg

Moreover, he is one of the least extreme of the primitivists. He just wants to return to the 18th century in terms of technological development, which still would require genocide upon most of Earth's current population.

Shortly speaking, anarcho-primitivists either are hypocrites or don't really want to institute their own ideology upon the world, but just flaunting it as a kind of lofty ideal to show their moral superiority to everyone.

Why do you always bring that shithead out in discussions of primitivism? He's not even a primitivist.

Also this thread is stupid, its a big circle jerk of technophiles talking about how wrong primitivists are, meanwhile no primitivists are allowed to say anything, and any members who defend primitivism do so at the risk of being locked in OI.

gorillafuck

18th November 2010, 21:51

Why do you always bring that shithead out in discussions of primitivism? He's not even a primitivist.

Also this thread is stupid, its a big circle jerk of technophiles talking about how wrong primitivists are, meanwhile no primitivists are allowed to say anything, and any members who defend primitivism do so at the risk of being locked in OI.
There's a difference between being a primitivist and being a technophile.

Conscript

18th November 2010, 22:01

There's a difference between being a primitivist and being a technophile.

Not if you're a primitivist :lol:

The Douche

18th November 2010, 22:03

There's a difference between being a primitivist and being a technophile.

Obviously? They are opposites, a technophile is one who loves/is in love with technology, a primitivist is against technology...

∞

18th November 2010, 22:56

Being one sounds so boring. I do like Jensen's book though, The Culture of Make Believe seemed like a very good piece of literature. With that said, primitivism sucks, no computers, no meat, no lulz, no condoms, just looking at waterfalls (which is fine in duration). Yaaaawn...

gorillafuck

18th November 2010, 23:13

Obviously? They are opposites, a technophile is one who loves/is in love with technology, a primitivist is against technology...
Then why did you say this thread is full of technophiles? It doesn't seem that way to me.

Conscript

18th November 2010, 23:50

Then why did you say this thread is full of technophiles? It doesn't seem that way to me.

For the same reason libertarians say every non-libertarian is a socialist ;)

The Douche

19th November 2010, 00:30

Then why did you say this thread is full of technophiles? It doesn't seem that way to me.

Is the thread not full of people defending technology and civilization? It consists of a discussion of overpopulation (how many of the people denying overpopulation also deny global warming?) and a bunch of people saying "lol I don't want a world without cellphones lol". The fact is, if you take an anti-civ position on this board you walk a thin line, odds are, you will eventually be restricted for being a primmie.

There are so many misconceptions of primitivism and the primitive world (pre-agriculture) in this thread that its sad. (lol at suggesting that veganism is somehow primitivist or that there is no leisure time in hunter/gatherer society, especially)

gorillafuck

19th November 2010, 01:48

Is the thread not full of people defending technology and civilization?
That's not a technophile. A technophile is someone who thinks that technology will solve all problems and more technology inherently means better.

It consists of a discussion of overpopulation (how many of the people denying overpopulation also deny global warming?) and a bunch of people saying "lol I don't want a world without cellphones lol". The fact is, if you take an anti-civ position on this board you walk a thin line, odds are, you will eventually be restricted for being a primmie.Most people who have cell phones enjoy having cell phones, so that would make sense. You're sounding like one of those leftists who's always looking down on the American workers and poor for not being lefty activists.

There are so many misconceptions of primitivism and the primitive world (pre-agriculture) in this thread that its sad. (lol at suggesting that veganism is somehow primitivist or that there is no leisure time in hunter/gatherer society, especially)
Agriculture has severely benefited all societies that developed it and if it was gotten rid of then it would be redeveloped. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

The Douche

19th November 2010, 02:17

A technophile is someone who thinks that technology will solve all problems and more technology inherently means better.

Of course this is an exageration (one that some people on this website will still fit in with), but yeah many posters on this board, especially the most vocal opponents of primitivism do believe that more tech=better.

Most people who have cell phones enjoy having cell phones, so that would make sense.

Cell phone technology requires mining, are you gonna force people to work as miners? Do you think people will voluntarily do it just so you can have a cell phone? I mean, I have one of course, but I'm not under the impression that they will exist post-revolution, unless somebody could figure out a way to create them without whatever fucking mineral it is that they need for them.

Agriculture has severely benefited all societies that developed it and if it was gotten rid of then it would be redeveloped. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Some people have made coherent arguements that it is agriculture which leads to surpluses and give us the ability to begin overpopulation and centralization, agriculture is the basis of civilization. When humans moved away from hunter gatherer society is when we see the emergence of the kind of hierarchy and class society we have to day.

You're sounding like one of those leftists who's always looking down on the American workers and poor for not being lefty activists.

Yeah man, I love activism and activists...and the left.:rolleyes:

gorillafuck

19th November 2010, 20:29

Of course this is an exageration (one that some people on this website will still fit in with), but yeah many posters on this board, especially the most vocal opponents of primitivism do believe that more tech=better.
The vocal opponents of primitivism are just attacking an enemy that doesn't exist, I'll give you that. There's no point in raging against primitivism since they basically don't exist.

Cell phone technology requires mining, are you gonna force people to work as miners? Do you think people will voluntarily do it just so you can have a cell phone? I mean, I have one of course, but I'm not under the impression that they will exist post-revolution, unless somebody could figure out a way to create them without whatever fucking mineral it is that they need for them.We could try to work as least as we possibly have to. We could use technology we have to make mining safe and much easier, but if I like cell phones and I'm asked to help mine the least that's needed to make cell phones then sure. People also make houses for other people voluntarily and care for other people in homeless shelters and food kitchens, even in a capitalist society. I don't buy into the extremely misanthropic idea that people don't help eachother out.

Some people have made coherent arguements that it is agriculture which leads to surpluses and give us the ability to begin overpopulation and centralization, agriculture is the basis of civilization. When humans moved away from hunter gatherer society is when we see the emergence of the kind of hierarchy and class society we have to day. Agriculture leads to surplus, yeah. That way you don't die just because you haven't slaved hard enough trying to get food. And you could have a classless society and still have surplus, I don't see why you couldn't. There are still people who only have what they grow and when they don't make enough they starve. They're trying to get out of that situation.

Yeah man, I love activism and activists...and the left.:rolleyes:I'm not saying you are one of those people, but criticizing people for liking cell phones is a lot like the trash I hear about how horrible everyone is for having things.

Ztrain

19th November 2010, 20:41

Mosatly because if they were true primitivsts they wouldnt be online to see us bash them:laugh: Id rather be an anarcho-pastoralist!

Manic Impressive

19th November 2010, 22:16

The primmies I know are just in love with a romantic idea of living in the woods and wiping their arses with tree bark. They see capitalism as the problem but they think that everything associated with it is the problem as well. As much as we hate capitalism we must acknowledge that it is an improvement on what came before. In it's earliest stage it was the progressive ideology, primmies do not seem to understand that it has had benefits and those benefits are mainly interlinked with technology. Basically I think they need to do a bit more reading and a little less day dreaming then i'm sure they'd come to the logical conclusions. So anarcho primmies are ok in my book they're just extremely naive.

But regardless primmies are illegal on this site so lets have a witch hunt!!!

I accuse Cmoney, Burn him Burn the primmie muwahahahahaaa

(@cmoney only joking bro :D)

#FF0000

19th November 2010, 22:58

Because primitivism is a fucking stupid idea because their society falls apart as soon as people decide they wanna farm.

Not to mention it is insane otherwise and resorting to primitivism necessarily means billions of people will die because they don't have things like modern medicine.

Ele'ill

19th November 2010, 23:01

My weekly chime-into this thread is -

Don't let the existance of 'primitivists' be an excuse to attack Green elements of the revolutionary left.

Dimentio

19th November 2010, 23:55

Why do you always bring that shithead out in discussions of primitivism? He's not even a primitivist.

Also this thread is stupid, its a big circle jerk of technophiles talking about how wrong primitivists are, meanwhile no primitivists are allowed to say anything, and any members who defend primitivism do so at the risk of being locked in OI.

His solution would actually mean less mass-deaths than the anarcho-primitivist solution. And he is actually honest and really mean what he is meaning - unlike Zerzan or Jensen who just like to masturbate over love.

The Douche

20th November 2010, 06:38

We could try to work as least as we possibly have to. We could use technology we have to make mining safe and much easier, but if I like cell phones and I'm asked to help mine the least that's needed to make cell phones then sure. People also make houses for other people voluntarily and care for other people in homeless shelters and food kitchens, even in a capitalist society. I don't buy into the extremely misanthropic idea that people don't help eachother out.

Building a house or cooking somebody dinner is not like mining. Sorry, I will not volunteer to be a miner, nor do I think most other people will, especially if its just for luxury goods.

That way you don't die just because you haven't slaved hard enough trying to get food.

This is not an accurate portrayal of hunter-gatherer society.

Mosatly because if they were true primitivsts they wouldnt be online to see us bash them

And true anti-capitalists don't work jobs or pay for anything?

The primmies I know are just in love with a romantic idea of living in the woods and wiping their arses with tree bark. They see capitalism as the problem but they think that everything associated with it is the problem as well. As much as we hate capitalism we must acknowledge that it is an improvement on what came before. In it's earliest stage it was the progressive ideology, primmies do not seem to understand that it has had benefits and those benefits are mainly interlinked with technology. Basically I think they need to do a bit more reading and a little less day dreaming then i'm sure they'd come to the logical conclusions. So anarcho primmies are ok in my book they're just extremely naive.

:rolleyes:

It never occurred to you that they know all the things you know, they just disagree? Are you in any way familiar with the roots of primitivism and what the primitivist critique of capital is?

Don't let the existance of 'primitivists' be an excuse to attack Green elements of the revolutionary left.

The reason that happens is because leftists refuse to even analyze primitivism and just build strawmen like the one above.

His solution would actually mean less mass-deaths than the anarcho-primitivist solution. And he is actually honest and really mean what he is meaning - unlike Zerzan or Jensen who just like to masturbate over love.

Ok cool. But he is not a primitivist, does not come from the primitivist traditions, does not argue for primitivism, and advocates the creation of a society which is, at its core, anti-thetical to primitivism. He is an agricultural-fascist. I challenge you to show how he relates to primitivism and how his ideas are somehow a part of the primitivist millieu.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

20th November 2010, 07:28

Building a house or cooking somebody dinner is not like mining. Sorry, I will not volunteer to be a miner, nor do I think most other people will, especially if its just for luxury goods.

If miners were socially lauded in the same way that soldiers in volunteer armies currently are, then I don't think we'd have any shortage of volunteers. Miners are certainly more deserving of being treated as heroes; they do a dangerous job that benefits many, but which is sadly under-appreciated at the moment.

This is not an accurate portrayal of hunter-gatherer society.

Indeed. In a hunter-gatherer society, whether one starves or not is largely outside of the society's control.

∞

20th November 2010, 08:48

He is an agricultural-fascist.

Can we please refrain from using the F-bomb?

Tavarisch_Mike

20th November 2010, 12:46

Since the early days of the labour movement it has been hijacked by groups who trys to force theire own ideas to the movement, frome drug-users, teetotalism to animal-rights and soo. Primitivism is one of them, it has nothing to do with class struggle, or anything about socialism at all, saying that they are against capitalism and therefor potentionally progressive, is just missleading, some groupes of neo-nazis are proclaiming a returne to a feudal society away frome capitalism. Still they are as reactionary as any fascists. Unfortunatley, primitivists, have managed to make a mark on the radical left, im tired of being mixed with beeing against industrialism when i tell people im a communist, and this is also why many are very hostile towards them.

I just want to make things clear about the overpoppulation myth. It is a myth, currently we are producing enough food to feed 12 billion people and the production is growing, still we dont need vertical farming or so to produce more food. However its seems to bee a good way to stop the waste of resources which is one of the reasons why so many are starving, but the main reason is still the hunt for profit, if you have to big harvests you cant sell it all or you will drown the market and you will bring down the prices to much, better to let the crops rotten, thats capitalism.
Other reasources such as metal is still no problem, currently we are recycling over 90% of all the steel in the world. The biggest problem, comming to resources, is oil and energy, but even here the situation seems hopefull, all the sun light, during one day in one square mile on the sahara desert would give enough energy to maintain the levels of Europe during a month and thats just one square mile, the problem (today) is how to save that power. One lightning could give enough electricity to the whole of New York city for 4 months(!) and it countinues with wave power, wind turbines and so, point is that there is enough energy, we just need to store it.

People have brought it up earlier, but i just need to go on with the thing that primitivists dont know what they talk about, that they have a to romanticised view of nature. As a person who likes hiking and outdoor activities, i know that nature is not a beautiful postcard, its harsch and that there is a reason why moste people want to leave poverty, because thats what it is, the life of the farmer in Sri Lankar, its poverty.

The Douche

20th November 2010, 13:45

Can we please refrain from using the F-bomb?

He actually is a fascist.:rolleyes:

revolution inaction

20th November 2010, 14:33

The Douche

20th November 2010, 16:21

If miners were socially lauded in the same way that soldiers in volunteer armies currently are, then I don't think we'd have any shortage of volunteers. Miners are certainly more deserving of being treated as heroes; they do a dangerous job that benefits many, but which is sadly under-appreciated at the moment.

Sorry bro, if mining is part of your revolution count me out. The environmental degradation is not worth the cost, and you can suggest whatever social measures you like to increase the prestige of mining, but I've met a few miners in my life when I did some social work in west virginia coal country, and none of them have any desire to do that work if they don't have to. In a world we were no longer base society on coercion I don't think there will be any mining.

Since the early days of the labour movement it has been hijacked by groups who trys to force theire own ideas to the movement, frome drug-users, teetotalism to animal-rights and soo. Primitivism is one of them, it has nothing to do with class struggle, or anything about socialism at all, saying that they are against capitalism and therefor potentionally progressive, is just missleading, some groupes of neo-nazis are proclaiming a returne to a feudal society away frome capitalism. Still they are as reactionary as any fascists. Unfortunatley, primitivists, have managed to make a mark on the radical left, im tired of being mixed with beeing against industrialism when i tell people im a communist, and this is also why many are very hostile towards them.

Anti-civ tendencies are one of the earliest tendencies within the working class as it first began to come into existence, see the levellers, diggers, and luddites. The modern primitivst movement certainly stands against industrial society (and yes that means soviet "socialism"), but if you had the slightest familiarity with primitivism (I know, thats to much to ask, that we would actually make an attempt to understand ideologies other than our own) then you would understand that their conclusions are based on an analysis that sees class society as being integral with civilization. Are you just trying to end capital? Or are you trying to end alienation, coercion, hierarchy, and exploitation? Can you really answer the primitivist critique of civilization? Do you even know what it is?

To just dismiss, out of hand, the primitivist milieu "because it means massive die-off" or whatever is absurd, that is not a defense of civilization.

gorillafuck

20th November 2010, 16:37

My weekly chime-into this thread is -

Don't let the existance of 'primitivists' be an excuse to attack Green elements of the revolutionary left.
This is important.

Building a house or cooking somebody dinner is not like mining. Sorry, I will not volunteer to be a miner, nor do I think most other people will, especially if its just for luxury goods.
I don't think it would be difficult finding other ways to mine.

This is not an accurate portrayal of hunter-gatherer society.No agriculture means that if you don't find enough food then you starve because there is no surplus. People created agriculture to improve their lives, so if it was eliminated, it would be recreated.

Also, if there was a revolution that tried to force me to hunt for all my food and give up medicine and have to build my own house from trees and give up all luxury and live in a hunter gatherer lifestyle, I'd fight against that revolution. As would the vast, vast majority of people. They'd be trying to impose a primitivist dictatorship over everybody, the primitivists trying to kill off humanity and force everyone to live as hunter-gatherers against everyones will.

So much for non-hierarchical.

Summerspeaker

20th November 2010, 17:13

People created agriculture to improve their lives, so if it was eliminated, it would be recreated.

According to Health and the Rise of Civilization (http://www.primitivism.com/health-civilization.htm) by Mark Nathan Cohen, the anthropological evidence actually suggests that agriculture reduced overall health outcomes if anything. Until the nineteenth century or so, surpluses benefited the elite and allowed higher populations but did nothing for the quality of life of the masses.

gorillafuck

20th November 2010, 17:15

Noinu

20th November 2010, 17:21

According to Health and the Rise of Civilization (http://www.primitivism.com/health-civilization.htm) by Mark Nathan Cohen, the anthropological evidence actually suggests that agriculture reduced overall health outcomes if anything. Until the nineteenth century or so, surpluses benefited the elite and allowed higher populations but did nothing for the quality of life of the masses.

After agriculture was 'discovered' the human population started growing. Before that, it was extremely unlikely that many people lived in the same place, usually in small tribes roaming around, but after agriculture, people started settleing down.
Living in the same place, creating villages and later towns. It's not all that unlikely that the change brought with it problems, just as it brought a lot of solutions. As one can see from medieval villages, people got sick easily living side by side to others without the basic understanding of hygiene.
But that agriculture would have reduced overall health, extremely difficult to prove, to say the least. Anthropological evidence of that scale from so far in history, is not all that abundant. There is room for errors.

The Douche

20th November 2010, 17:53

I don't think it would be difficult finding other ways to mine.

Honestly, I do have faith in the ingenuity of people. I think that people really can come up with solutions. The question is how long it takes us to develop these solutions and how feasible they really are/what the costs are, etc.

No agriculture means that if you don't find enough food then you starve because there is no surplus. People created agriculture to improve their lives, so if it was eliminated, it would be recreated.

Lots of things were created for lots of reasons (the state, religion etc) not all of them are positive. The picture of hunter-gatherers constantly being on the verge of starvation and extinction however, is largely innacurate and is a symptom of racist anthropologists from the 15th/16th century.

They'd be trying to impose a primitivist dictatorship over everybody, the primitivists trying to kill off humanity and force everyone to live as hunter-gatherers against everyones will.

Again, this demonstrates the way people on the left totally misunderstand and misrepresent primitivism. In general, anarcho-primitivists and the anti-civ types who have some sort of place in the discussion (not people like Linkola) do not believe in forcing anybody to live in anything. They see civilization as inherently unsustainable (as I do), and that we are heading towards collapse. The works of people like Jensen are filled with calls to action in educating people about the collapse/unsustainable nature of civilization, about learning how to hunt/gather/survive etc. It does attack liberal ecology which seeks to find a way to make this unsustainable society last longer, and it does encourage people to hasten the collapse. If we do not rewild then there may not be enough of the wild left to support the human species.

That would be an argument in favor of agriculture and against capitalism.

While I do disagree with agriculture (it is unsustainable, destorys eco-systems, and is largely ineffective), I really do not support a return to an exclusively hunter-gatherer lifestyle. So I am not welcome in what would traditionally be the primitivist movement. But I do find the left's misconceptions of primitivism/radical ecology/anti-civ do be really disheartening.

Reznov

20th November 2010, 17:57

The real question is, how would primitivism and those that would like to adhere to it be treated in a post-revolutionary society?

Would they be allowed to? What if a very large number of the population wanted to even though it seemed stupid and reactionary in your opinion?

Tavarisch_Mike

20th November 2010, 18:27

Anti-civ tendencies are one of the earliest tendencies within the working class as it first began to come into existence, see the levellers, diggers, and luddites.

Do you mean Marx and Engels texts about 'Primitive Communism'? If that is the case i think youve missunderstod the point. And thoose groups are intresting to studie, but i dont see them as a example for the modern labour movement, which goals has always beeing to take over the production and run it for the best of us all, not to destroy civilization.

The modern primitivst movement certainly stands against industrial society (and yes that means soviet "socialism"),

Yeah i kind of got that.

but if you had the slightest familiarity with primitivism (I know, thats to much to ask, that we would actually make an attempt to understand ideologies other than our own) then you would understand that their conclusions are based on an analysis that sees class society as being integral with civilization.

I have had this big fascination for the human evolution, both Paleolithic and Neolithic and hunter-gatherers, since i was a kid i have had many contacts with primitivism and would say that im familiar with it, not an expert, but understand the basics. Im aware of that hiarchys and classes pretty much came with the first civilizations, but they are not integral with eachother i dont buy that analysis.

Are you just trying to end capital? Or are you trying to end alienation, coercion, hierarchy, and exploitation? Can you really answer the primitivist critique of civilization? Do you even know what it is?

By ending capitalism we will end all youre examples, so yeah i want to end them. I read that text like six years ago (if you mean that one by the german philosoph that i cant remmeber what his name was) i found it quite amusing but more of one persons idealistic, personal philosophy rather then a political manifesto.

To just dismiss, out of hand, the primitivist milieu "because it means massive die-off" or whatever is absurd, that is not a defense of civilization.

Im not sure if i understand that, but the reason why most people dissagree with primitivism is because we know that if it was putting into practice great dissasters would be the resoulte, just like Dimentio wrote earlier.

∞

20th November 2010, 19:23

He actually is a fascist.:rolleyes:

I doubt it...unless he open-heartedly calls himself one.

Summerspeaker

20th November 2010, 19:37

That would be an argument in favor of agriculture and against capitalism.

I'm certainly not arguing against agriculture or for capitalism, though I would stay it's more an argument against centralization and hierarchy than anything else. By most accounts, capitalism didn't appear until fairly long after agriculture. As best we can tell, Hobbes was flat out wrong about the state of nature compared with lives of the common people of his day. Civilization did not clearly produce better physical health outcomes until the nineteenth century. That's critically important to remember when thinking about the narrative of progress.

Dimentio

20th November 2010, 19:47

Ok cool. But he is not a primitivist, does not come from the primitivist traditions, does not argue for primitivism, and advocates the creation of a society which is, at its core, anti-thetical to primitivism. He is an agricultural-fascist. I challenge you to show how he relates to primitivism and how his ideas are somehow a part of the primitivist millieu.

Primitivists want to abolish modern technology, which Linkola also wants. Linkola is less extreme than Zerzan or Jensen though, since he just wants to move back to the 18th century and not to the Paleolithic Age. And yes, he is calling himself an eco-fascist.

As I've earlier said, he is totally honest with what a regression of the human technological level would mean, while Zerzan and Jensen just are using emotional arguments and relying on people's middle class sentimentality in order to appear as hip and uncompromising. I doubt that Zerzan or Jensen even believes that anarcho-primitivism is realistic and I also believe that both of them rather wants to be anarcho-primitivists than to have anarcho-primitivism installed.

The thing is that you can be all for a pre-technological state where people no longer are alienated and everyone are making free love and smoking pot and creating artworks, but what you will get is a violent reduction of the human numbers which would stabilise on a level where human standards of life would drop to a median age of about 25. That is no matter how much you believe that people would love one another and nature. Anarcho-primitivists are idealists.

Pentti Linkola and Ted Kaczynski are the only two who somewhat are related to the anti-technological crowd who are holding some sort of sober image. Linkola is of course not an anti-civilisationist (and actually claims that modern society has destroyed civilisation), while Kaczynski has touched the alienation subject, but rather from a patriarchal supremacist point-of-view, idealising the 19th century pioneer society.

Dimentio

20th November 2010, 19:59

The Douche

20th November 2010, 23:18

Do you mean Marx and Engels texts about 'Primitive Communism'? If that is the case i think youve missunderstod the point.

Sure, that too, or Marx on the Iroquois. But thats not my point.

And thoose groups are intresting to studie, but i dont see them as a example for the modern labour movement, which goals has always beeing to take over the production and run it for the best of us all, not to destroy civilization.

My point was that since the existence of the working class, there as has been opposition to its role in society, that opposition has included anti-civ tendencies. Lets not reinvent a history devoid of people who wanted to return to the primitive. (for various reasons and with various levels of ideological clarity)

Im aware of that hiarchys and classes pretty much came with the first civilizations, but they are not integral with eachother i dont buy that analysis.

Thats cool, but lets not act like said analysis doesn't exist and that primitivism is just based on a romantic view of nature.

By ending capitalism we will end all youre examples, so yeah i want to end them.

I am not convinced 100% that that is true, nor am I sure that "ending capitalism" can happen in the way the left has traditionally concieved it.

Im not sure if i understand that, but the reason why most people dissagree with primitivism is because we know that if it was putting into practice great dissasters would be the resoulte, just like Dimentio wrote earlier.

I honestly believe that it is not really an issue anymore of putting it into practice. I think it is inevitable. But thats just me. As far as "disasters" thats obviously a loaded term, and I don't necessarily agree that the way the earth naturally does things to cleanse itself is a "disaster". (no I don't really hold an exclusively anthropocentric POV)

Primitivists want to abolish modern technology, which Linkola also wants.

Primitivism means a return to huntr-gatherer society, agriculture is part of civilization, no primitivists support agriculture.

Linkola is less extreme than Zerzan or Jensen though, since he just wants to move back to the 18th century and not to the Paleolithic Age.

This is actually what makes him not a primitivist though.

As I've earlier said, he is totally honest with what a regression of the human technological level would mean, while Zerzan and Jensen just are using emotional arguments and relying on people's middle class sentimentality in order to appear as hip and uncompromising.

I'm not a fan of Zerzan, he's very wordy and I find him to be really aloof and lots of his works go way over my head (like, why he opposes art or language, or symbolic thought as oppressive, I would like to understand but I don't, Jensen also ventures into this territory sometimes, and while I find Jensen much easier to read, these parts still confuse me). Jensen however talks very plainly in Endgame about what the collapse means, and talks very clearly about how a lot of people will die, because they don't know how to survive anymore.

I doubt that Zerzan or Jensen even believes that anarcho-primitivism is realistic and I also believe that both of them rather wants to be anarcho-primitivists than to have anarcho-primitivism installed.

Maybe so, I don't know either of them personally. I will say that they are not my major influences or the main writers that lead me down the rabbit hole of anti-civ theory.

The thing is that you can be all for a pre-technological state where people no longer are alienated and everyone are making free love and smoking pot and creating artworks, but what you will get is a violent reduction of the human numbers which would stabilise on a level where human standards of life would drop to a median age of about 25. That is no matter how much you believe that people would love one another and nature. Anarcho-primitivists are idealists.

I dunno, maybe, I don't think anthropology supports the life expectancy of 25, I think its more into the mid-30s, but these things offer nothing to our discussion. I'm certainly no idealist, realism is what has lead me to anti-civ positions, there are inherent contradictions in all the communist tendencies I have read about and the supposed ideas of communism, and I think civilization has to be destroyed to reconcile these issues. But no I am not a "primitivist", but I would say I am also not opposed to primitivism, I guess?

Pentti Linkola and Ted Kaczynski are the only two who somewhat are related to the anti-technological crowd who are holding some sort of sober image. Linkola is of course not an anti-civilisationist (and actually claims that modern society has destroyed civilisation), while Kaczynski has touched the alienation subject, but rather from a patriarchal supremacist point-of-view, idealising the 19th century pioneer society.

Whatever man. This is not how you discuss something with someone. You obviously don't really understand primitivism or the anti-civ position, you have built up a strawman of it, and you totally buy into your strawman. You attempt to take the weakest elements with weird things in common with the periphery of primitivism and claim that these are the central elements and core thinkers. You are being very dishonest.

Dimentio

20th November 2010, 23:56

If you destroy the infrastructure, people will die. It is that simple really.

The Douche

21st November 2010, 00:35

If you destroy the infrastructure, people will die. It is that simple really.

But this is not an arguement against primitivism! Communist revolution means death, industrialization means death. Social change means people will die.

Amphictyonis

21st November 2010, 00:48

Sure, that too, or Marx on the Iroquois. But thats not my point.

Marx was talking about women having a hand in providing material sustenance and hence enjoying a greater level of equality. He was showing that our relation to the means of production/sustenance determines our social standing.

He also spoke of the horrors which are born out of scarcity- the goal was/is to use industry to provide (rational) abundance and also give the masses equal access to the means of production. In order for this to be a progressive step everything would have to drastically change. Our conception of freedom (in the west) has been entwined with capitalism- freedom is the "freedom to choose" (a bunch of junk some capitalist made and has targeted you with endless adverts and Jedi mind tricks to consume). Everything would change- our very conception of reality would change under communism. With no profit motive technology can be a liberating force but it can also be used to attack human freedom and destroy the environment.

The sort of wasteful mindless consumerism we see in America could not be sustained in America let alone the entire world. We would need 4 earths to provide the necessary resources. If we stay on the path we're on now, under capitalist expansion/industrialization I think you're absolutely right to say humanity is doomed but you need to be able to have the vision to separate industry under capitalism and industry under actual communism/anarchism.

But this is not an arguement against primitivism! Communist revolution means death, industrialization means death. Social change means people will die.

Pol Pot ?

The Douche

21st November 2010, 01:07

The sort of wasteful mindless consumerism we see in America could not be sustained in America let alone the entire world. We would need 4 earths to provide the necessary resources. If we stay on the path we're on now, under capitalist expansion/industrialization I think you're absolutely right to say humanity is doomed but you need to be able to have the vision to separate industry under capitalism and industry under actual communism/anarchism.

I don't disagree with this. But this is anti-civ. You acknowledge that civilization is not sustainable, that communism means ending civilization. I don't pretend to know what the world will look like post-revolution/post-civilization, but I do know for certain that it will not involve everybody driving lambos, living in McMansions, and eating fast food. But that is how many people on this website see post revolutionary society.

I don't consider myself a primitivist, I don't think primitivists would consider me one. But if the options are primitivism or some sort of soviet society, I prefer primitivism. And if we can't move forward against capital then all these ideas are for naught, because primitivism will be the result.

Pol Pot ?

haha. But for real, saying "primitivism is wrong because people will die" is not an actual arguement against the ideas of and the critique presented by primitivism.

Summerspeaker

21st November 2010, 01:30

haha. But for real, saying "primitivism is wrong because people will die" is not an actual arguement against the ideas of and the critique presented by primitivism.

Consider the numbers involved. Without agriculture, billions simply starve to death. Unless you think that acceptable and/or inevitable (as Jensen does), primitivism makes little sense.

Amphictyonis

21st November 2010, 01:40

I don't disagree with this. But this is anti-civ. You acknowledge that civilization is not sustainable, that communism means ending civilization.

No I didn't say that. Jeez Louise C'money. You're worse at putting words in my mouth than that Penguin poster. Communism means ending capitalism. Capitalism is not sustainable. Industrial civilization free of the profit motive can be.

The Douche

21st November 2010, 02:16

Consider the numbers involved. Without agriculture, billions simply starve to death. Unless you think that acceptable and/or inevitable (as Jensen does), primitivism makes little sense.

Agriculture...is...not...sustainable. So it doesn't matter whether we want a world without it or not. Why primitivists oppose things like permaculture though, I don't really understand.

No I didn't say that. Jeez Louise C'money. You're worse at putting words in my mouth than that Penguin poster. Communism means ending capitalism. Capitalism is not sustainable. Industrial civilization free of the profit motive can be.

I think you're confusing "civilization" with "technology". Your statement was completely in line with what is referred to as "anti-civilization". But it was certainly not primitivist or anti-technology.

penguinfoot

21st November 2010, 02:25

What a stupid topic. Has anyone on this forum ever met an "anarcho-primitivist"? Does anyone live in a country where "anrcho-primitivsts" have any influence or real visibility beyond tiny circles of life-style anarchists? I really doubt it. Rather than focusing on a totally irrelevant and minor political current which is on the fringes of a broader political movement - anarchism, or even revolutionary socialism for that matter - which is itself rather marginal, why not focus on the real sources of growth skepticism in contemporary societies - sources such as governments, the capitalist class, and the main body of the intelligentsia? They're the ones who are really glorifying scarcity and who exhibit such a profound lack of faith in the benefits of modern industry, and they're lot more influential than a bunch of silly nutcases.

For the record, I think that in a communist society people (preferably everyone) should own Ferraris (rep me if you get the reference) and eat fast food, and jet around the world.

Summerspeaker

21st November 2010, 02:40

Agriculture...is...not...sustainable.

Not as currently practiced, but plants are a decidedly renewable resources.

Why primitivists oppose things like permaculture though, I don't really understand.

Permaculture is agriculture. And in practice the primitivists I know tend to support it regardless of whether they want to be hunter-gatherers in theory.

Has anyone on this forum ever met an "anarcho-primitivist"? Does anyone live in a country where "anrcho-primitivsts" have any influence or real visibility beyond tiny circles of life-style anarchists?

I know and struggle beside plenty. You might dismiss them (and me) as lifestylists, but that would imply writing off the vast majority of the Americans who identify as anarchists.

penguinfoot

21st November 2010, 02:42

I know and struggle beside plenty. You might dismiss them (and me) as lifestylists, but that would imply writing off the vast majority of the Americans who identify as anarchists.

Indeed, my impression is that the American anarchist left is pretty pathetic in comparison to its European and Third-World counterparts, who are much more steeped in the traditions of class-struggle anarchism. I do think that most lifestylists should be written off, if they can't be won to revolutionary socialism.

Summerspeaker

21st November 2010, 03:04

I don't have any clear definition of lifestylists beyond "anarchist-identifying people I don't like" or "anarchist-identifying people who haven't succeeded in overthrowing capitalism" (which would be all of us without exception). Few of the primitivists I know personally would qualify as individualists or anything like that. Two of them in particular are heavily involved in local organizing projects such as Copwatch and the inchoate graduate student union as well as free food distribution.

ellipsis

21st November 2010, 04:05

I sympathize with a lot of the spirit of primitivism, although I am much more on the agrarianism side of the anti-technology spectrum. I think its pretty clear that our current system is unsustainable, even if resources were being allocated correctly and everybody had food, the ways in which the resources are being utilized are destroying eco-systems and ergo life on this planet. Technology has a very alienating effect on people.
Do I think we should forgoe language? no. do i think the current use of technology plays an over-all detremental effect on human existance? yes.

Amphictyonis

21st November 2010, 04:07

Criticisms of consumerism under capitalism, such as the ones below, have some grounding in reality-

rsVgFcsy1vY

But as we know ^ their ^ criticisms don't end with capitalist industrialization-Criticisms of industry under communism are bunkum. Hierarchy or hierarchical civilization wasn't created by agriculture it was formed when "big men" controlled the surplus created by agriculture. Control of that surplus by a minority class gave that class control of society. This doesnt mean we cannot create abundance without hierarchical society this means we don't let any minority control the means of production (especially a capitalist minority that doesn't give a shit about anything but profits). For "anarchists" primo's sure do lack a proper understanding of history. Hierarchical civilization arose when control over the surplus was given to a minority. The entire point of socialism is to give everyone equal control/access to the means of production in so eliminating any minority from control of surplus and thus society itself.

EDIT- to Penguinfoot, the WTO protests in Seattle had a strong primo current (there were normal anarchists and unions there as well). One could make the argument that they made it happen so I'd say the north west coast of America has a pretty strong primo population.

ellipsis

21st November 2010, 04:11

What a stupid topic. Has anyone on this forum ever met an "anarcho-primitivist"? Does anyone live in a country where "anrcho-primitivsts" have any influence or real visibility beyond tiny circles of life-style anarchists?

I have met some anti-civ/primitivist/anti-tech folk, actually quite a few. Anarcho-primitivists not really. As for their influence, derrek jensen was just on democracy now! (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/15/author_and_activist_derrick_jensen_the) which is a pretty big circle. looks like i spelled his name wrong, but spelling is pretty hiearchical so i dont think he would mind.

Ovi

21st November 2010, 04:22

Other reasources such as metal is still no problem, currently we are recycling over 90% of all the steel in the world. The biggest problem, comming to resources, is oil and energy, but even here the situation seems hopefull, all the sun light, during one day in one square mile on the sahara desert would give enough energy to maintain the levels of Europe during a month and thats just one square mile, the problem (today) is how to save that power.

Not exactly. The insolation on one square mile in the Sahara Desert is enough to sustain about 200 000 Europeans; the insolation for a single day is enough to sustain about 6000 Europeans for a month; that's a bit less than the population of Europe.

One lightning could give enough electricity to the whole of New York city for 4 months(!) and it countinues with wave power, wind turbines and so, point is that there is enough energy, we just need to store it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Harvesting_lightning_energy

According to Northeastern University physicists Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, a lightning bolt carries a few million joules of energy, enough to power a 100-watt bulb for 5.5 hours
I think New York City has at least one light bulb

Amphictyonis

21st November 2010, 04:36

I'm not saying Testla was in fact scientifically able to do this but the point is it was stopped by JP Morgan when he found out Tesla was trying to provide free energy. Where's the profit in that?

T2PyyO1nv7I

What primo's need to understand is, under capitalism, there has been and will be, on an annual basis, projects turned down or that cannot get investment because there's no profit in it- many times new inventions would have the potential to destroy entire industries. Perhaps some technologies which would make fossil fuel irrelevant- perhaps it's silly to speculate because the point is so obvious.

Dimentio

21st November 2010, 05:35

But this is not an arguement against primitivism! Communist revolution means death, industrialization means death. Social change means people will die.

Yes. The difference being that people will actually have it better(?) when the flames have died out.

But maybe you just hate everything that works.

Amphictyonis

21st November 2010, 06:30

Heck, even scientific funding doesn't take place unless capitalists can profit from it. It's all insane. On the other end scientific advances in the so called 'public rhelm' (via government funding) doesn't take place unless it can be used to murder and control people (military applications).

Why's the world so fucked up? Dugh.....

RedScare

21st November 2010, 07:04

Primitivists actively want billions and billions of people to die to achieve their goals. That alone should say something...

Dimentio

21st November 2010, 07:29

Primitivists actively want billions and billions of people to die to achieve their goals. That alone should say something...

Not actively. Just passively.

Sosa

21st November 2010, 07:31

Not actively. Just passively.

Does it really matter which?

gorillafuck

21st November 2010, 16:29

If there were ever a primitivist society someone would start trying to grow their own food. Therefore agriculture would be invented.

Agriculture...is...not...sustainable. So it doesn't matter whether we want a world without it or not. Why primitivists oppose things like permaculture though, I don't really understand.
I'm pretty sure permaculture is a type of agriculture, it's just a type of agriculture based on non industrial land use.

penguinfoot

21st November 2010, 17:02

I don't have any clear definition of lifestylists beyond "anarchist-identifying people I don't like" or "anarchist-identifying people who haven't succeeded in overthrowing capitalism" (which would be all of us without exception).

I think it's quite easy to give lifestylist a definition, its core component is the belief that it is both feasible and desirable for anarchists to directly anticipate the future society through adjusting the ways we live and interact with others within society as it currently exists, often through the rejection of the cash nexus (in favor of production for use and mutual aid) and other social phenomena that are seen to be central to the capitalist/hierarchical order. The reason this trend of thought can be seen to differ from other areas of the anarchist tradition is not in the basic notion that the future society can be anticipated, because this is a notion that is also present in other areas and which might even be seen as a key part of anarchism as a current of political thought (Ward certainly thinks so, and he's much admired by anarchists, for good reasons), in that it also manifests itself in ideas like one big union, for example, because the rationale behind one big union is not only that a general union is the best way to resist the bosses within capitalism but also that the management of the future society might take place through a similar structural arrangement, and it's also a notion whose origins can be found in the cooperative and banking schemes of Proudhon, who, whether you like it or not, is an important part of the history of anarchism. Rather, the distinguishing feature of lifestylism is the notion that the anticipation of the future should take place primarily through adjustments in personal relationships and patterns of living on the part of individuals, rather than through building organizations like general unions.

Two of them in particular are heavily involved in local organizing projects such as Copwatch and the inchoate graduate student union as well as free food distribution.

This might be a subject for a broader discussion, but one of the problems I have with things like Food not Bombs and other kinds of free food distribution programs is that they tend to innately create a relationship of inequality, in that they involve people receiving food, rather than fighting in an active way for their own emancipation. It's also questionable as to whether these programs establish a direct relationship even of a unequal kind between anarchists and working people, seeing as the main beneficiaries of those programs tend, in my experience, to either be other anarchists or students such as myself and the homeless - not that the homeless shouldn't receive food, of course, or that the programs aren't praiseworthy on moral grounds, but let's not kid ourselves that huge numbers of workers benefit from or are empowered by anarchists handing out free food.

I think its pretty clear that our current system is unsustainable

The notion of sustainability is primarily a moral rather than a scientific one because it embodies a moral presumption in favour of the interests of future generations rather than current ones and also involves a cautious and risk-averse attitude towards economic development. It can't just be cited or used as a buzzword as if it has inherent scientific validity.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

21st November 2010, 17:33

Agriculture...is...not...sustainable.

Working from a sample size of one, I don't think you can make such hasty generalisations.

Dimentio

21st November 2010, 20:15

Does it really matter which?

No. But primitivists are sensitive people. They might start cry on you.

:cool:

ellipsis

21st November 2010, 21:16

The notion of sustainability is primarily a moral rather than a scientific one because it embodies a moral presumption in favour of the interests of future generations rather than current ones and also involves a cautious and risk-averse attitude towards economic development. It can't just be cited or used as a buzzword as if it has inherent scientific validity.

Not at all, you have missed my point. Capitalism itself (the current configuration even more so) is an unsustainable system and I mean this in a very empirical way, for you to accuse me of making moral arguments is pretty laughable, no matter the context. Regardless of the human species and whatever potential interest I may have in preserving its longevity or of my attitude regarding "economic development", capitalism is an ever-growing imperial project which is solely concerned with an ever expanding profit margin, which translates directly to use of resources, among other things, extraction of surplus value, etc. This planet, and indeed all planets are finite, and infinite "economic development" on finite resources is what is called unsustainable.
And in case you haven't noticed, the current generation is getting pretty fucked over by this unsustainable system, see the island of Naru. Fuck future generations, I am worried about my lifetime, and I don't even plan on living that long.

What is your opinion of those apples, kind sir?

The Douche

22nd November 2010, 00:24

This thead is dumb, I really hate revleft, almost as much as I hate repeating myself.

Fuck you guys, I'm gonna go tattoo my face and blow up a dam.

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 00:26

This thead is dumb, I really hate revleft, almost as much as I hate repeating myself.

Fuck you guys, I'm gonna go tattoo my face and blow up a dam.

Make Total Destroy :thumbup1:

gorillafuck

22nd November 2010, 00:27

This thead is dumb, I really hate revleft, almost as much as I hate repeating myself.

Fuck you guys, I'm gonna go tattoo my face and blow up a dam.
You really haven't made a good argument for the end of civilization. You've only said people are misinterpreting primitivism.

If revleft tries to restrict you for primitivism I won't support the restriction at all, but if you can't put forward a good argument for your beliefs then don't just dismiss and ignore peoples problems with it.

The Douche

22nd November 2010, 00:53

You really haven't made a good argument for the end of civilization. You've only said people are misinterpreting primitivism.

If revleft tries to restrict you for primitivism I won't support the restriction at all, but if you can't put forward a good argument for your beliefs then don't just dismiss and ignore peoples problems with it.

1) If I were to make such an arguement I would be restricted.

My interest here isn't really arguing the anti-civ position, many people (realistic ones) are anti-civ, they understand that post-revolution we will not have the sort of excess that exists today, a lot of the things we have are based on coerced labor that won't be performed post-revolution. When we acknowledge that things like that won't exist, that life will be much more simple, we're talking about the end of "civilization".

2) I am not really prepared to argue in defense of the anti-civ position. I have only read one text by Perlman and one by Camatte, Jensen's endgame, and a few things here and there by Zerzan and other primitivists (mostly in Green Anarchy magazine back issues). I tend to find myself in agreement with the anti-civ position but am not in the position to elaborate on it or defend it like I could defend things I am vastly more familiar with/well read in.

3) Yes I really do despise the way primitivism is presented on here, technocrats and various technophiles make up bald faced lies about primitivism/primitivists and other posters totally eat it up. Whereas most people who have legitimately been active in real life in the anarchist movement, the environmentalist movement, or the anti-nuclear movement will have worked with very dedicated people who are primitivists. The fact that there are people on this website who deny global warming is mind-numbing to me, honestly, such people can't even be engaged in anyway, and I honestly don't consider them my comrades, since they want to destroy the fucking planet.

anticap

22nd November 2010, 00:56

I'm no primitivist, but the appeal that 'billions would die' is utterly fallacious when offered in response to their critique of civilization. It's true, and anyone who can brush it off is disgusting, but it's still a fallacious appeal. You can't use it if you want to be taken seriously; you have to actually address their critique.

Summerspeaker

22nd November 2010, 01:07

As I see it, primitivists are pessimists more than anything else. They accept the liberal position that mass society can't exist without coercion and exploitation. However, instead of rejecting liberation like liberals do they reject mass society instead. Traditional anarchists on the other hand insist that we can have mass society without its current horrors. Perhaps that's too rosy a view, but the massive disruption abandoning technology would cause along with the unpleasantness of hunter-gatherer living conditions convince me it's the only path forward consistent with my values.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd November 2010, 01:08

1) If I were to make such an arguement I would be restricted.

Nonsense. You're arguing right now and you're not restricted.

When we acknowledge that things like that won't exist, that life will be much more simple, we're talking about the end of "civilization".

You have a weird definition of civilisation. It doesn't have to be wasteful and unsustainable.

2) I am not really prepared to argue in defense of the anti-civ position.

Well then, erm, don't?

The fact that there are people on this website who deny global warming is mind-numbing to me, honestly, such people can't even be engaged in anyway, and I honestly don't consider them my comrades, since they want to destroy the fucking planet.

I haven't seen any global warming denialism, and I should know since I moderate S&E.

black magick hustla

22nd November 2010, 01:24

gorillafuck

22nd November 2010, 01:27

...what is the primitivist definition of civilization?:confused:

Summerspeaker

22nd November 2010, 01:47

i am a left communist and i believe in the usefulness of science. but i wish for the day this miserable civilization gets burnt down to the ground and division of labor is put to the minimum. i dont want to live in a world where we survive for 20 years and live in the woods, but i neither want to live in that future being engineered and marshalled by capital.

The primitivist critique based on alienation resonates with me. I find much of our modern urban technological environments downright dehumanizing. I'd rather walk in the woods than down a city street inhaling car exhaust and in constant danger from those metal death machines.

As side note, I also like the Flores Magón quotation in your signature.

Amphictyonis

22nd November 2010, 02:32

This thead is dumb, I really hate revleft, almost as much as I hate repeating myself.

Fuck you guys, I'm gonna go tattoo my face and blow up a dam.

Make sure to do it traditional Japanese style by hand with no tattoo gun ;)
The only problem I have with primo's is their lack of vision for what a non capitalist consumer earth would look like.

Less like this 4jUlBMiEaco

and more like this

_jAkPo5Y42k

2WPC9XhK0l8

With NONE of this

jEesD2WAa60

The sort of consumerism capitalism creates is truly sickening. This reality, this CAPITALIST civilization does in fact need to be demolished/replaced. I can agree with that.

Quail

22nd November 2010, 02:56

The reason I'm not a fan of primitivism (bit of an understatement there) is that I think its analysis of what's wrong with the society that we live in is flawed. There is nothing inherently wrong with technology and civilisation, but capitalism is an exploitative, unsustainable system which means that technology such as weapons are profitable, whereas developments that could make life more sustainable are not. By rejecting technology and civilisation you would be lowering people's quality of life. Surely as communists we should be aiming to maximise it?

I also find it somewhat ridiculous to expect people not to "reinvent" civilisation. How would you stop that from happening?

Amphictyonis

22nd November 2010, 03:01

Capitalism

ECPVJvb0qVo

The goal of communism/anarchism is to end this sort of waste.

ellipsis

22nd November 2010, 03:56

By rejecting technology and civilization you would be lowering people's quality of life.
To an extant this is true but many technologies have brought with them many problems, especially in regards to diet, environmental pollutants, asthma, extreme exploitation and hegemonic conditioning of the proletariat, etc. To say that quality of life can only be provided by high level of technology is problematic. On the flipside, the "natural" world, which is far from natural in almost everyway at this point is not inherently bountiful and utopian as über-primitivists would have one believe.

Some technologies in some areas of our lives have really been destructive, especially from a Marxist perceptive. People need to reexamine their relationship to technology in all parts of their lives, considering the broader context of the production, maintainence and development of that technology.

The Douche

22nd November 2010, 07:47

i guess i am an "apologist" too? well nobody can slander me as a primitivist because i am the revleft resident physicist (RIP ComradeRed) and i like computers.

however the critique of civilization is a critique that lies at the roots of marxist theory of alienation. the idea is that civilization brought division of labor and with it class society and the explotation of man by man. the idea that civilization has brought all sorts of unnecessary labor and psychological concerns that might not have existed in the original man. or that man has been domesticated and made subservient to these institutions and ideas and ideologies that did not fuck with us before. theres like two camps in the anticiv discourse, the jensen type dumbasses and the ones that came of marxist anticiv like camatte and perlman and to a degree zerzan. marxist anticiv púts man in the center of the discourse, not nature.

i am a left communist and i believe in the usefulness of science. but i wish for the day this miserable civilization gets burnt down to the ground and division of labor is put to the minimum. i dont want to live in a world where we survive for 20 years and live in the woods, but i neither want to live in that future being engineered and marshalled by capital.

This accurately describes my position, though I think I am probably slightly closer to primitivism than Maldoror.

If anybody is interested these are the texts that influenced me. (and I used to be staunchly against primitivism, much like the posters in this thread)

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html

http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/wanhum/index.htm

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/inddom.html

Among others, Jensen did have some influence on me, but I read Endgame long before I even thought of flirting with anti-civ/primitivist positions.

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 07:56

The thing is, in Marxism there are two types of egalitarian society: One is the pre-Neolithic, "primitive" form of communism, which is forcedly egalitarian because people have to cooperate to deal with scarcity of resources, and the other is what most call communism: A post-capitalist society in which cooperation and equality are not necessary but possible because of abundance of productive forces (and resources?).

I would argue that those who call for sustainable technologies, and I'm going to agree here that a lot of our technologies are simply not designed to be sustainable, and a less "dehumanizing" environment, be it by re-greening or however, are very far from what the average person understands to be primitivists.

synthesis

22nd November 2010, 08:59

i wish for the day this miserable civilization gets burnt down to the ground and division of labor is put to the minimum.

What makes you think they go hand in hand? Those two things seem mutually exclusive to me.

Quail

22nd November 2010, 11:43

To an extant this is true but many technologies have brought with them many problems, especially in regards to diet, environmental pollutants, asthma, extreme exploitation and hegemonic conditioning of the proletariat, etc. To say that quality of life can only be provided by high level of technology is problematic. On the flipside, the "natural" world, which is far from natural in almost everyway at this point is not inherently bountiful and utopian as über-primitivists would have one believe.
Any problems relating to exploitation are problems with capitalism and the way that technology is used in that system, not a problem with the technology itself. As for the other problems, it would make more sense to me to try and develop cleaner, safer technology that serves the same purpose instead of rejecting it completely.

Some technologies in some areas of our lives have really been destructive, especially from a Marxist perceptive. People need to reexamine their relationship to technology in all parts of their lives, considering the broader context of the production, maintainence and development of that technology.
The only reason that some technologies have been destructive is that way that they're used, not because they're inherently destructive.

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 14:25

Any problems relating to exploitation are problems with capitalism and the way that technology is used in that system, not a problem with the technology itself. As for the other problems, it would make more sense to me to try and develop cleaner, safer technology that serves the same purpose instead of rejecting it completely.

The only reason that some technologies have been destructive is that way that they're used, not because they're inherently destructive.

You're contradicting yourself. For one you say there can be "cleaner, safer technology", implying that (some) current technology is neither clean nor safe, but on the other hand you claim that technology is inherently neutral and has only been misused - what is it?

I would say that (some, actually a lot) technology is destructive, because it was designed so.

Quail

22nd November 2010, 14:30

You're contradicting yourself. For one you say there can be "cleaner, safer technology", implying that (some) current technology is neither clean nor safe, but on the other hand you claim that technology is inherently neutral and has only been misused - what is it?

There was no contradiction there. For example, cars have improved our quality of life, but at the moment the pollution they cause is problematic, so instead of saying "cars are inherently bad because they pollute the air" we should be working towards cars that don't do that. That was what I meant by the first point. Developments in scientific knowledge are neutral, but how they are applied depends on the system and the people that apply them.

I would say that (some, actually a lot) technology is destructive, because it was designed so.
The theory and science behind things such as arms is not inherently bad, but it has been applied in a destructive way.

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 14:36

There was no contradiction there. For example, cars have improved our quality of life, but at the moment the pollution they cause is problematic, so instead of saying "cars are inherently bad because they pollute the air" we should be working towards cars that don't do that. That was what I meant by the first point. Developments in scientific knowledge are neutral, but how they are applied depends on the system and the people that apply them.

The theory and science behind things such as arms is not inherently bad, but it has been applied in a destructive way.

Yeah but you are equating knowledge (theory and science) with it's manifestation (technology). The fact remains that a lot of our technology - the material things we have produced around the world - is unsustainable and needs to be done away with (which in itself is quite often a problem).

Quail

22nd November 2010, 15:03

Yeah but you are equating knowledge (theory and science) with it's manifestation (technology). The fact remains that a lot of our technology - the material things we have produced around the world - is unsustainable and needs to be done away with (which in itself is quite often a problem).
I agree that some of our technology is unsustainable, which is why I suggest that we develop something that serves the same purpose but is sustainable. As an example, burning fossil fuels is unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly, but we can't simply "do away" with coal power stations without finding an alternative.

The application of the knowledge is also neutral. You can use the technology for planes to either transport people or to drop bombs and kill people, for example. You can use nuclear technology for power or destruction. It all depends on who has the technology, and what they intend to do with it.

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 18:56

I agree that some of our technology is unsustainable, which is why I suggest that we develop something that serves the same purpose but is sustainable.

Yes, but you can't build a fossil energy power plant into something sustainable, sure you can use part of the infrastructure and materials used in it's assembly, but you would most likely have to disassemble huge parts of it to get close to sustainability. The concept of the plant itself is not sustainable because it was designed with a profit motive ignoring sustainability. The technology "fossil energy power plant" is not a neutral technology, it's a profit oriented, unsustainable anachronism.

As an example, burning fossil fuels is unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly, but we can't simply "do away" with coal power stations without finding an alternative.

That is all too often used as an excuse to just keep them on grid, however. There are alternatives that are not used, because research and application of results, too, are not neutral. The majority of Germany's energy could be provided from regenerative sources, however instead we put formerly shut down nuclear power plants back on grid and delay planned shut downs.

"Do away" obviously doesn't mean to dismantle all fossil fuel plants ad hoc, even if you chose to interpret it that way.

The application of the knowledge is also neutral. You can use the technology for planes to either transport people or to drop bombs and kill people, for example. You can use nuclear technology for power or destruction. It all depends on who has the technology, and what they intend to do with it.

It depends on what scale you look at it. The knowledge of how to split atoms may be neutral, but the knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb hardly is.

I would also say that your plane example is somewhat flawed. In both cases, the plain is used for transport - either of people or of bombs. The bomb however is never neutral, or at least I refuse to believe it until you show me a way in which nuclear bombs can be used for anything except contaminative destruction.

hatzel

22nd November 2010, 19:03

The application of the knowledge is also neutral. You can use the technology for planes to either transport people or to drop bombs and kill people, for example. You can use nuclear technology for power or destruction. It all depends on who has the technology, and what they intend to do with it.

...

For this is the standard method of the evil-minded murderer: to take the fruits of enlightenment and intelligence, intended to enhance life on this earth, and turn them into their opposites, tools for the angel of death.

Consider, for example, the railroad, invented for the purpose of transporting the bounty of the earth from one area to another, distributing the blessings of nature to all the inhabitants of the earth, and in years of famine rescuing from death those in any particular district threatened by starvation. But now look! The impudent diplomat-destroyers from the school of Bismarck boldly commandeer the locomotives, and without the least regard for the sanctity of science, proceed to fill the freight cars with soldiers, shipping them off like cattle to front lines where they are to kill and be killed. Without a twinge of conscience they turn the blessing, "Who has graciously bestowed knowledge upon man," into a frightful curse.

Or consider the invention of the electric light, intended to illuminate night's darkness, that men might not stumble into pits or snares. And now, in times of war, men turn searchlights upon enemy camps so that they can aim more accurately the muzzles of their cannons!

Or so said a certain Aaron Samuel Tamaret (who nobody here will know or care about, don't worry! :rolleyes:) back before the WWI

Still...I think we can of course agree that there's some kind of line. I mean, sure, trains and lights can be used to aid destructive purposes, but merely claiming that we abolish trains and lights is a little strong...I know you're not claiming that, by the way, I'm just pointing out how important it is to make sure we consider the balance, and decide whether the advantages outweigh the potential disadvantages stemming from misuse. In these cases, it's a non-question, as far as I'm concerned. Nuclear power, though...well, that's a much more contentious point...

Quail

22nd November 2010, 19:10

Yes, but you can't build a fossil energy power plant into something sustainable, sure you can use part of the infrastructure and materials used in it's assembly, but you would most likely have to disassemble huge parts of it to get close to sustainability. The concept of the plant itself is not sustainable because it was designed with a profit motive ignoring sustainability. The technology "fossil energy power plant" is not a neutral technology, it's a profit oriented, unsustainable anachronism.

I never said that you could, but you can find alternative energy sources that are less harmful. A fossil energy power plant is neutral. How is it anything but neutral? The only reason that technology isn't neutral is because it's being used in a system where profit is more important than sustainability.

That is all too often used as an excuse to just keep them on grid, however. There are alternatives that are not used, because research and application of results, too, are not neutral. The majority of Germany's energy could be provided from regenerative sources, however instead we put formerly shut down nuclear power plants back on grid and delay planned shut downs.
It may be used as an excuse by capitalists who are too concerned with profit to find alternatives, but from the point of view of keeping society running, it is a valid point. The reason Germany is using dirty energy is not to do with the fact that dirty technology exists, but because of the system that we live in.

It depends on what scale you look at it. The knowledge of how to split atoms may be neutral, but the knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb hardly is.

A nuclear bomb is an example of splitting an atom being used in a negative, destructive way, yes, but the existence of nuclear bombs says nothing about whether that technology is "bad" or not.

I would also say that your plane example is somewhat flawed. In both cases, the plain is used for transport - either of people or of bombs. The bomb however is never neutral, or at least I refuse to believe it until you show me a way in which nuclear bombs can be used for anything except contaminative destruction.
The knowledge behind the bomb is neutral, but it has been applied in a negative way. For a way in which explosives can be used constructively, consider the role of dynamite in mining.

Eastside Revolt

22nd November 2010, 19:59

How progressive of you. Do you also "agree" with modern medicine?

You mean the domination of multinational pharmaceutical corporations? And a philosophy that creates sicknesses?

Quail

22nd November 2010, 20:01

You mean the domination of multinational pharmaceutical corporations? And a philosophy that creates sicknesses?
I presume that if medicines were not distributed by multinational corporations, you'd have no objection to the drugs that can cure illnesses or help people manage their medical conditions?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

22nd November 2010, 21:28

Noinu

22nd November 2010, 21:34

Quail

22nd November 2010, 21:40

So, uh, technofetishists, are you going to go into the toxic mines to procure the necessary resources for continued production of high-technology?

Sure, you can say "technology is neutral" but the means of producing it sure as fuck ain't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a primitivist, but to imagine a post-capitalist society would continue to demand people engage in life-threatening, back-breaking, ecologically destructive shit-work so we can play Battlefield is . . . stoopid.
Someone already made this point earlier in this thread, so I will just quote revolution inaction's response:

i would think that in a communist society mining would also be much safer and less unpleasant. it could also be some people only did for a short time like a year or two, rather than a job they did there whole life

If people really want luxury goods then they will most likely be willing to help out in their production. Besides, there are a lot of resources around that we could recylce, which would mean we wouldn't have to mine as much.

When you say, "Sure, you can say "technology is neutral" but the means of producing it sure as fuck ain't." you are again falling into the trap of blaming technology for problems caused by capitalism.

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 21:41

I never said that you could, but you can find alternative energy sources that are less harmful. A fossil energy power plant is neutral. How is it anything but neutral? The only reason that technology isn't neutral is because it's being used in a system where profit is more important than sustainability.

So, in communism, nuclear waste does not contaminate the environment?

Quail

22nd November 2010, 21:43

So, in communism, nuclear waste does not contaminate the environment?
Where did I say that :confused:

Nuclear waste would contaminate the environment unless it was properly contained or recycled. However, that doesn't make nuclear power inherently bad.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

22nd November 2010, 21:43

So, uh, technofetishists, are you going to go into the toxic mines to procure the necessary resources for continued production of high-technology?

Sure, you can say "technology is neutral" but the means of producing it sure as fuck ain't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a primitivist, but to imagine a post-capitalist society would continue to demand people engage in life-threatening, back-breaking, ecologically destructive shit-work so we can play Battlefield is . . . stoopid.

Stop blaming technology for problems with capitalism. It's been explained by several posters in this thread. Are you too dense to understand this simple fact?

So, in communism, nuclear waste does not contaminate the environment?

Stop blaming technology for problems with capitalism. It's been explained by several posters in this thread. Are you too dense to understand this simple fact?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

22nd November 2010, 21:43

I would have no objection to go into those 'toxic mines' if I'd be able to get my meds and stay alive as a result.

See this is exactly the inevitable contradiction that we face, vis- post/industrial society. I think it is, as far as a "big answer" goes, unresolvable - to place an ideological premium on the life of either, say, someone who needs some aspect of high technology to stay alive or, alternatively the communities that are potentially devastated by the production process of that same technology, is . . . well, it can only be resolved in practice. In abstract terms, such a decision will always be "wrong".

Noinu

22nd November 2010, 21:47

See this is exactly the inevitable contradiction that we face, vis- post/industrial society. I think it is, as far as a "big answer" goes, unresolvable - to place an ideological premium on the life of either, say, someone who needs some aspect of high technology to stay alive or, alternatively the communities that are potentially devastated by the production process of that same technology, is . . . well, it can only be resolved in practice. In abstract terms, such a decision will always be "wrong".

Production processes aren't all inherently destructive. Production processes can also be changed.
Not to mention that most people in this world actually do need some aspect of 'high technology'. And those who don't, probably will some day in their future.

The best would be to try and make these processes less destructive, better them, not delete them from existance; that would really be stupid.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

22nd November 2010, 21:48

revolution inaction

22nd November 2010, 21:50

So, in communism, nuclear waste does not contaminate the environment?

it is possible to use nuclear power without contaminating the environment with nuclear waste, but it is not as profitable, so what do you think?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

22nd November 2010, 21:52

Production processes aren't all inherently destructive. Production processes can also be changed.
Not to mention that most people in this world actually do need some aspect of 'high technology'. And those who don't, probably will some day in their future.

The best would be to try and make these processes less destructive, better them, not delete them from existance; that would really be stupid.

I think that, in a context of reimagined social relations, the necessity of technology as it now presents itself to us is also likely to change drastically. Rather than being concerned with the "improvement" of technology as such (or its deletion - which is of course absurd - the physical junk of this society can't simply be made to vanish), I can only assume that . . . well, I can't assume anything, I guess that's the point I'm trying to make.

Noinu

22nd November 2010, 21:53

To conceive technology and capitalism as independent variables is horrendously reductionist. The interrelationship between them isn't simple by any means, but to imagine that technology hasn't shaped the real practice of capitalism (as y'all are obviously aware the reverse is true) is . . . well, as Wolfie put it, "Are you too dense to understand this simple fact?"
Economism. Ug.

Excuse me, but the simple ways of combating illnesses, the invention of a microscope and the realisation of hygiene (by poor Mr. Semmelweiss) were in no way interrelated with capitalism.
Most of these people did their research against the hopes of others, they were made fun of etc.
Technology and the making of technology are not dependant on capitalism.
Most people would rather do their research independent from any money restraints or the idea that they 'have to find something that can be sold'. For example, especially in the field of medicine, most just want to make lives better, regardless of money, power, economics, whatnots.
The idea that technology can not work independently from capitalism is in my opinion just as ridiculous.

Noinu

22nd November 2010, 21:54

I think that, in a context of reimagined social relations, the necessity of technology as it now presents itself to us is also likely to change drastically. Rather than being concerned with the "improvement" of technology as such (or its deletion - which is of course absurd - the physical junk of this society can't simply be made to vanish), I can only assume that . . . well, I can't assume anything, I guess that's the point I'm trying to make.

I really doubt that a change to social relations can make diseases just vanish into thin air. I mean, geez.

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 21:58

Stop blaming technology for problems with capitalism. It's been explained by several posters in this thread. Are you too dense to understand this simple fact?

Stop blaming technology for problems with capitalism. It's been explained by several posters in this thread. Are you too dense to understand this simple fact?

No I think you resort to childish "shut the fuck up" attacks because you are unable to make an argument, either because you're straight out stupid (though personally I don't think you are, but who knows), or because you have this sacrosanct view of technology and science as some independent entity immune to ideological strains and beyond all questioning and criticism.

You are also very obviously unable to understand one very basic principle that I have been illustrating ad nauseum in this thread, which is that "capitalism" is not some jigsaw in which "technology" is placed, but rather that capitalism is a driving force behind the development and manufacturing of technology, which means that technology is designed by capitalist principles (profit). It is therefore not neutral. Of course that doesn't mean that all of it is bad, but to claim that a nuclear bomb is only a destructive weapon in capitalism is fucking metaphysical beyond any dimension Fred Phelps could ever dream of. Technology is not isolated from society. A contaminating and alienating machinery is always contaminating and alienating, the claim put forward in this thread that under communism better alternatives could be developed does not disprove my point at all, in fact it proves it - social structure is crucial in shaping technology.

If you would do so much as even TRY to understand what I'm writing you could possibly grasp that I'm neither arguing for primitivism nor against technology or science per se, however it seems your deification of all that is technological obstructs this insight.

Jazzratt

22nd November 2010, 21:59

You mean the domination of multinational pharmaceutical corporations? And a philosophy that creates sicknesses? Pharmaceutical corporations (like any corporation) are fucking scum but that's a problem of capitalism not of medicine. Medicine is certainly not a "philosphy that creates sickness" unlike the holistic and alternative medicines which are pedalled by sinister vultures who take your cash without the decency of offering an efficacious cure for your ailments.

So, in communism, nuclear waste does not contaminate the environment? Don't be inane. Under communism nuclear waste can be disposed of more safely without the need to cut corners thanks to the profit motive.

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 22:07

Where did I say that :confused:

Nuclear waste would contaminate the environment unless it was properly contained or recycled. However, that doesn't make nuclear power inherently bad.

it is possible to use nuclear power without contaminating the environment with nuclear waste, but it is not as profitable, so what do you think?

Ok listen. You both are right and also wrong. Yes, it is possible to use nuclear power in a cleaner way than it is now, that's correct.

However the technology we use now is not clean, is not safe, and is sure as hell not fucking "neutral."

That we can in theory build a nuclear power plant that does not operate on a profit motive and that does not have all the negative side effects of our current power plants may be true, but our current power plants are capitalist technology which is designed by one principle: Cost efficiency. It is not neutral. Similarly, these "alternative power plants" would not be neutral either, they would be designed by the principle of sustainability or cleanness or whatever you want to call it.

Don't be inane. Under communism nuclear waste can be disposed of more safely without the need to cut corners thanks to the profit motive.

sigh .... that means that under communism, communist technology can do what capitalist technology can't. that doesn't make technology "neutral."

Quail

22nd November 2010, 22:10

That we can in theory build a nuclear power plant that does not operate on a profit motive and that does not have all the negative side effects of our current power plants may be true, but our current power plants are capitalist technology which is designed by one principle: Cost efficiency. It is not neutral. Similarly, these "alternative power plants" would not be neutral either, they would be designed by the principle of sustainability or cleanness or whatever you want to call it.

So what you're saying is that nuclear power can be cleaner, dirtier and more or less sustainable depending on who is using it? Surely that would make it neutral? The only reason it's "bad" in our society is because the people in control of the technology wish to make a profit, but the technology itself is neither bad nor good.

StalinFanboy

22nd November 2010, 22:17

Technology in an abstract sense is neutral. But the actual physical technologies we have right now are not. Their development has been guided by capitalist development and they only exist to create profit at the expense of everything else.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

22nd November 2010, 22:20

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 22:24

So what you're saying is that nuclear power can be cleaner, dirtier and more or less sustainable depending on who is using it? Surely that would make it neutral? The only reason it's "bad" in our society is because the people in control of the technology wish to make a profit, but the technology itself is neither bad nor good.

Are you equating "technology" with "knowledge" again?

Nuclear power may be neutral, because nuclear power is an abstract.

The fucking power plant standing on the ground in the actual material world is not neutral, because it was designed and build according to capitalist principles, it is capitalist technology. Technology is not some fucking abstract concept, technology is material reality in which's manufacture capitalism has played a key part.

These things are not going to be safe or clean or "neutral" no matter how communist society around them is:

http://www.wirtschaft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/atomkraftwerke.jpg

http://www.motorfm.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/pr550681247185868atombombe.jpg

It is fucking absurd to claim that the social relations, political system or mode of production could change the way some building, machine or gadget functions.

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 22:28

Which can be changed, since the profit motive will no longer factor into R&D.

Nobody said anything to the contrary.

black magick hustla

22nd November 2010, 22:28

What makes you think they go hand in hand? Those two things seem mutually exclusive to me.

Well I guess it depends on what you mean by civilization. Some people who argued for the very destruction of it (communists) spoke of its destruction as a "greater civilization". But I think historically what defined civilization is the intensification of the division of labor, and therefore the rise of "technocrats" and "intellectuals" who can live off the surplus of agriculture. I dont think it makes sense to define civilization as intellectual achievements, but as a particular mode of organization that arose hand in hand with class society. I don t think the destruction of civilization implies going back to the jungles or some shit, but it does imply the destruction of institutions, the state, and "specialists".

StalinFanboy

22nd November 2010, 22:29

Which can be changed, since the profit motive will no longer factor into R&D.
Technology in an abstract sense can be changed. But a lot of the shit that exists in capitalist society will have no place in a communist one. Widerstand's post above mine demonstrates this pretty clearly.

Mining may be safer but it will never be safe. And anyone who mines now will tell you that unless there was some force (such as the need to make money to feed their families or the cops) making them go into the mines to get coal and all the nasty shit that makes the conveniences of our capitalist world so wonderful, they would not do it.

Quail

22nd November 2010, 22:31

Are you equating "technology" with "knowledge" again?

Nuclear power may be neutral, because nuclear power is an abstract.

The fucking power plant standing on the ground in the actual material world is not neutral, because it was designed and build according to capitalist principles, it is capitalist technology. Technology is not some fucking abstract concept, technology is material reality in which's manufacture capitalism has played a key part.

These things are not going to be safe or clean or "neutral" no matter how communist society around them is:

It is fucking absurd to claim that the social relations, political system or mode of production could change the way some building, machine or gadget functions.

So nuclear power plants can't be adapted to be safer and cleaner? I'm not equating knowledge with technology at all. A nuclear power plant can be safe and clean if it is run with people's interests in mind as opposed to profit. Obviously in a capitalist society that is not the case, but that doesn't make nuclear power plants bad.

Widerstand

22nd November 2010, 22:37

So nuclear power plants can't be adapted to be safer and cleaner? I'm not equating knowledge with technology at all. A nuclear power plant can be safe and clean if it is run with people's interests in mind as opposed to profit. Obviously in a capitalist society that is not the case, but that doesn't make nuclear power plants bad.

It makes the nuclear power plants that right now, in the outside world exist bad.

Is that so fucking hard to understand?

Your messianic "but someday we can make them safer" prayer doesn't change the fact that right now they are pretty shit.

Jazzratt

23rd November 2010, 00:13

These things are not going to be safe or clean or "neutral" no matter how communist society around them is:

http://www.wirtschaft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/atomkraftwerke.jpg

The most poisonous thing in that picture is the church in the middle ground. The steam towers which are releasing clouds of gaseous water look dramatic but implying they're not safe or clean shows you know fuck all about nuclear power.

Your messianic "but someday we can make them safer" prayer doesn't change the fact that right now they are pretty shit. Statistically nuclear power is statistically the safest method of generating power. It's obvious that these technologies can be safe and efficient even with the profit motive holding them back. Without it I see no reason that they wouldn't become safer. You're just a total moron who's arrogantly confused your own petty sense of defeatism for realism.

Ovi

23rd November 2010, 00:13

The technology to bring unsustainable and damaging agriculture to the highest level is not neutral. I don't see any sane society threatening it's water resources, fishing levels, it's ability to produce food in the future by using up the phosphorus reserves, and the health of it's citizens be it not for the profit motive. There's nothing neutral in technology developed solely for profit in compete disregard of real needs and negative effects; there's nothing neutral in mining gold with cyanide, it's a technology to bring a shiny yellow metal for people to worship because social norms say you have to, while devastating the lives of people and animals in the vicinity. Developing the technology to use open ponds to store hazardous wastes because it's cheaper is not neutral either. Technology derived from research into implanting RFID chips in humans is not neutral if we abhor it and the only ones who support it are the upper class.

Widerstand

23rd November 2010, 00:23

The most poisonous thing in that picture is the church in the middle ground. The steam towers which are releasing clouds of gaseous water look dramatic but implying they're not safe or clean shows you know fuck all about nuclear power.

You dumbfuck, I was obviously talking about the power plant that those belong to. But yeah I get it, you think nuclear waste is harmless and can be dumped into peoples backyards as it is now.

Statistically nuclear power is statistically the safest method of generating power. It's obvious that these technologies can be safe and efficient even with the profit motive holding them back. Without it I see no reason that they wouldn't become safer.

Statistically? Really? Solar and wind energy are statistically less safe than nuclear power? I'd love to see that statistic.

You're just a total moron who's arrogantly confused your own petty sense of defeatism for realism.

Actually you're a moron who thinks everyone remotely into environmentalism wants to live in a cave. If you would be so kind as to point out where I was defeatist. I'm not even arguing for an anti-civ or anti-technology position, but of course you would be stupid enough to confuse primitivism with pointing out that nuclear waste is harmful, is shittily managed (storage) and that the nuclear power plants we have are build on a profit motive with suboptimal safety.

synthesis

23rd November 2010, 01:33

Well I guess it depends on what you mean by civilization. Some people who argued for the very destruction of it (communists) spoke of its destruction as a "greater civilization". But I think historically what defined civilization is the intensification of the division of labor, and therefore the rise of "technocrats" and "intellectuals" who can live off the surplus of agriculture. I dont think it makes sense to define civilization as intellectual achievements, but as a particular mode of organization that arose hand in hand with class society. I don t think the destruction of civilization implies going back to the jungles or some shit, but it does imply the destruction of institutions, the state, and "specialists".

Well, first, can we at least agree that written history and civilization go hand-in-hand, at least to a certain extent?

Of course, I'm not saying that all civilizations have had written histories, but rather that written histories are generally not seen without a civilization to accompany them.

So, taking that into account, and using Taleb's concept of "silent evidence," I think it is just as likely that all the terrible shit we associate with "class society" also existed before the advent of written history, and therefore before civilization.

Full disclosure: I fell asleep behind the wheel on Friday night and wrapped the front of my car around a telephone pole, so I'm on a lot of hydrocodone and I don't know how coherently I can make this argument.

But I'll try to elaborate on how I see this. First, I don't know that I agree with Marx's concept of "primitive communism." Here's my perspective:

1. Scarcity = stratification (primarily due to the dominance hierarchies that are embedded in our behavior as advanced social animals)
2. Technology = less scarcity (due to its productive capacity) and therefore
3. Technology = less stratification (but not capable of creating communism in and of itself, discrete from the proletariat that operates it as a means of production)

Basically, it seems like there are two schools of thought here. One argues that genetically modified food, for example, is bad because it's "unnatural" or "harmful to nature." The other argues that it is bad because it is monopolized by capital and therefore cannot be used for the common good.

The point is not to abolish genetically modified food, the point is to use it for the common good. If we can use genetically modified food for the common good, it means that we have freed up an unimaginably large amount of labor-power that can also be used for better purposes. The same goes for all elements of modern class society.

I hope all that made even a little sense.

synthesis

23rd November 2010, 01:36

...

Sidenote: Nothing personal, Widerstand, but I think these are exactly the kind of posts we should be trying to avoid making in this forum, given the recent discussion on stricter moderation here. Please, people, take a deep breath and try to be respectful.

Widerstand

23rd November 2010, 01:41

Sidenote: Nothing personal, Widerstand, but I think these are exactly the kind of posts we should be trying to avoid making in this forum, given the recent discussion on stricter moderation here. Please, people, take a deep breath and try to be respectful.

I get your point and all, but srsly couldn't be bothered to edit the slurs out after being called moronic over a strawman of Jazz.

synthesis

23rd November 2010, 01:44

I get your point and all, but srsly couldn't be bothered to edit the slurs out after being called moronic over a strawman of Jazz.

Fair point - I just picked your post because it was right above mine.

Jazzratt

23rd November 2010, 02:36

You dumbfuck, I was obviously talking about the power plant that those belong to. But yeah I get it, you think nuclear waste is harmless and can be dumped into peoples backyards as it is now. No one dumps nuclear waste in people's backyards you irritating prick.

Statistically? Really? Solar and wind energy are statistically less safe than nuclear power? I'd love to see that statistic. Solar is possibly safer but there have been more accidents that killed workers in wind power than in nuclear power. That makes sense though given that nuclear power plants have been engineered over years to be incredibly safe environments whereas the relative youth of wind turbine technology means less precautions are taken. Then of course there's the environmental impact, too:
http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/img/co2.jpg
But I presume this is the kind of shit you know because it would be kind of embarrassing if you were calling me a dumbfuck without having actually thought your position through logically. I mean you'd look like some kind of hypocritical bellend thriving on his own ignorance.

The debate isn't about nuclear power though (there's a sticky in the S&E forum if you want to be humiliated on that subject) so I'll try to go back on topic.

Actually you're a moron who thinks everyone remotely into environmentalism wants to live in a cave. That's odd given that I'm an environmentalist.

If you would be so kind as to point out where I was defeatist. I'm not even arguing for an anti-civ or anti-technology position, but of course you would be stupid enough to confuse primitivism with pointing out that nuclear waste is harmful, is shittily managed (storage) and that the nuclear power plants we have are build on a profit motive with suboptimal safety. Look. You were responding to Kayl's perfectly reasonable point that safety levels of existing technology would increase under communism (a not unreasonable assumption given that they already do, albeit at a slow pace, under capitalism) with the phrase "messianic prayer" suggesting you believe that this position is pie in the sky thinking. This is what makes you a defeatist. You see only stagnant technology and pooh-pooh any speculation on advancement as wishful thinking.

The thing is that you're not arguing simply about the efficacy of safety measures in nuclear power plants (if I was going to think of an example of truly suboptimal safety I'd use hydroelectric dams which caused 100 times more accidental deaths per TerraWatt/year than nuclear) under capitalism. You were quite plainly joining the whingy crypto primitivists in the charge that technology is somehow a non-neutral force and that we should "do away" with technology produced under capitalism.

No doubt, obviously, under communism we will see the technologies of capitalism become obsolete, that is the natural progression of things. That isn't, though, what I think you and others mean when you engage in scaremongering about technology.

StalinFanboy

23rd November 2010, 02:42

I still don't see how anyone will get enough people to go mine shit for like cell phones and shit without putting a gun to their head.

Widerstand

23rd November 2010, 02:57

No one dumps nuclear waste in people's backyards you irritating prick.

Then what is Gorleben according to you? A bunch of backwards farmers and 50.000 primitivists protesting safe and clean energy? Or maybe it is people who don't want nuclear waste buried right beneath their homes. Where the fuck do you think Germany dumps it's nuclear waste? In the "unpopulated" areas, which don't actually exist?

Solar is possibly safer but there have been more accidents that killed workers in wind power than in nuclear power. That makes sense though given that nuclear power plants have been engineered over years to be incredibly safe environments whereas the relative youth of wind turbine technology means less precautions are taken.

This doesn't factor in all the longterm damage from Chernobyl, I suppose.

Then of course there's the environmental impact, too:
http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/img/co2.jpg
But I presume this is the kind of shit you know because it would be kind of embarrassing if you were calling me a dumbfuck without having actually thought your position through logically. I mean you'd look like some kind of hypocritical bellend thriving on his own ignorance.

CO2 emissions are not the only environmental impact however.

Look. You were responding to Kayl's perfectly reasonable point that safety levels of existing technology would increase under communism (a not unreasonable assumption given that they already do, albeit at a slow pace, under capitalism) with the phrase "messianic prayer" suggesting you believe that this position is pie in the sky thinking. This is what makes you a defeatist. You see only stagnant technology and pooh-pooh any speculation on advancement as wishful thinking.

I don't, I have never said there can't be advancement. I have talked about technology in it's current form being not neutral. About all technology is manufactured with a capitalist motive, with minimal regards to safety and environmental aspects. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

The thing is that you're not arguing simply about the efficacy of safety measures in nuclear power plants (if I was going to think of an example of truly suboptimal safety I'd use hydroelectric dams which caused 100 times more accidental deaths per TerraWatt/year than nuclear) under capitalism. You were quite plainly joining the whingy crypto primitivists in the charge that technology is somehow a non-neutral force and that we should "do away" with technology produced under capitalism.

Uhm, Technology is not neutral. Why would it be neutral? Technology is used to generate profit, that is the aim for which it is researched, developed and manufactured. Again, because you are really thick, this does not mean that there can't be technology produced for a different goal or that current knowledge and research can't be used to manufacture proper technology. But to call technology and science "neutral" is about as ridiculous as saying a sociobiologist claiming humans are selfish and women are dumb is "neutral."

No doubt, obviously, under communism we will see the technologies of capitalism become obsolete, that is the natural progression of things. That isn't, though, what I think you and others mean when you engage in scaremongering about technology.

I don't engage in scarcemongering, but if you would actually take a look at the fucking world you'd realize that there are very real problems with unclean, unsafe and unsustainable technology, build by capitalists utilizing "neutral" knowledge, in both the first and the third world.

Manic Impressive

23rd November 2010, 03:40

I still don't see how anyone will get enough people to go mine shit for like cell phones and shit without putting a gun to their head.

Some people enjoy mining and are good at it. You can turn any job into what I like to think of as a kind of art if you are passionate about it. As I saw someone else say earlier safety conditions would be greatly improved and leisure time extended. I think taking the view that you would have to hold a gun to someone's head to get them to go down a mine is anti working class and insulting to miners.

Speaking of miners is anyone else suspicious that two of the worst mining accidents have happened at almost exactly the same time during a deep recession. Cutbacks on safety perhaps?

synthesis

23rd November 2010, 03:44

I think you're missing a step here:

Uhm, Technology is not neutral. Why would it be neutral? Technology is used to generate profit, that is the aim for which it is researched, developed and manufactured. Again, because you are really thick, this does not mean that there can't be technology produced for a different goal or that current knowledge and research can't be used to manufacture proper technology. But to call technology and science "neutral" is about as ridiculous as saying a sociobiologist claiming humans are selfish and women are dumb is "neutral."

Technology, or at least the kind with which we're concerned, is used to increase productivity, which generates profit. Obviously if the mode of production is capitalist then capitalists will dominate the means of production, i.e. that same technology.

Again, the point must be to repossess the means of production, not to condemn the means of production as the wholly corrupted excrement of capital. So therefore we must understand technology as being neutral in and of itself. That, I think, is the primary difference between Marxists and primitivists.

Amphictyonis

23rd November 2010, 05:43

I still don't see how anyone will get enough people to go mine shit for like cell phones and shit without putting a gun to their head.

What else are all the old capitalists going to do? They'll enjoy getting their hands dirty. But seriously, I think there may be enough cell phones to hand one out to every man woman and child in the world already. People are discarding cellphones every few months.

Kinda like food

ECPVJvb0qVo

The question is, under communism will everything have to be replaced every few months as it is now in advanced capitalist nations. Bigger!Better! Faster! CONSUME!!!! This is a necessity in order to keep capitalism alive. If the market doesnt perpetually expand capitalism will go kaput. This is why we've all been turned into mindless consumers.

Manic Impressive

23rd November 2010, 06:12

The question is, under communism will everything have to be replaced every few months as it is now in advanced capitalist nations. Bigger!Better! Faster! CONSUME!!!! This is a necessity in order to keep capitalism alive. If the market doesnt perpetually expand capitalism will go kaput. This is why we've all been turned into mindless consumers.

While mining will be required to produce less it doesn't really answer the question la rage asked. Which is not about mining it's about who will fill the jobs which he/she deems bad jobs. Technology will play a big part but in communism people still need to do these jobs until we have the technology to lighten the burden. The difference between now and then will be everyone will get the chance to be educated to a good standard and people who meet the requirements will go on to the jobs which are currently deemed as good. The real problem with the question is looking at jobs in a post revolutionary world through the eyes of a system which places the worth of these jobs on how much capital the individual doing them acquires and not through their worth to society.

The Douche

23rd November 2010, 16:57

Some people enjoy mining and are good at it. You can turn any job into what I like to think of as a kind of art if you are passionate about it. As I saw someone else say earlier safety conditions would be greatly improved and leisure time extended. I think taking the view that you would have to hold a gun to someone's head to get them to go down a mine is anti working class and insulting to miners.

Speaking of miners is anyone else suspicious that two of the worst mining accidents have happened at almost exactly the same time during a deep recession. Cutbacks on safety perhaps?

Holy moron, batman.

I wish I was a middle class student too...

1. Scarcity = stratification (primarily due to the dominance hierarchies that are embedded in our behavior as advanced social animals)
2. Technology = less scarcity (due to its productive capacity) and therefore
3. Technology = less stratification (but not capable of creating communism in and of itself, discrete from the proletariat that operates it as a means of production)

This is based on the presupposition that neo-litihic/pre-civilization societies were scarcity societies. Which most non-bourgeois anthropologists disagree with. I would encourage you to check out the link I posted earlier to "The Original Affluent Society", or to check out the first half of Zerzan's "Future Primitive" (though I prefer the fist). It is becoming more widely accepted that hunter-gatherer societies were in fact pre-scarcity societies, where people usually did about 4 hours of work a day with the rest reserved for leisure.

The Douche

23rd November 2010, 16:58

While mining will be required to produce less it doesn't really answer the question la rage asked. Which is not about mining it's about who will fill the jobs which he/she deems bad jobs. Technology will play a big part but in communism people still need to do these jobs until we have the technology to lighten the burden. The difference between now and then will be everyone will get the chance to be educated to a good standard and people who meet the requirements will go on to the jobs which are currently deemed as good. The real problem with the question is looking at jobs in a post revolutionary world through the eyes of a system which places the worth of these jobs on how much capital the individual doing them acquires and not through their worth to society.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

23rd November 2010, 17:03

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

So what do you propose then? Since you've discredited any attempt to increase technological productivity as inherently evil and capitalistic in nature.

Manic Impressive

23rd November 2010, 17:25

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Resorting to insults cmoney that's when you know you've really lost an argument.
Anyway i'll try and respond to this ridiculous post.

So you don't deem mining a suitable occupation in a post revolutionary society, why? What about farming? What about a guy who has to clean sewers? What about a guy who has to clear asbestos out of old buildings? What about a worker in a power station? What about a deep sea diver who has to fix under water oil leaks? What about refuse collectors? What about a million other jobs that may be dangerous or deemed as a "low" occupation?

In a post revolutionary society we'll just do without these things right? That's illogical and utopian.

p.s. I am not middle class and I am not a student

The Douche

23rd November 2010, 17:42

So what do you propose then? Since you've discredited any attempt to increase technological productivity as inherently evil and capitalistic in nature.

I have done no such thing, what I have argued is that technology is inherently alienating. But anyhow, what do I propose? I dunno, not mining I guess?

Also, "increase productivity"? This is not the goal of my revolution.

In a post revolutionary society we'll just do without these things right? That's illogical and utopian.

So, we will just have to trust and hope that there will be enough people willing to volunteer to put themselves in dehumanizing, alienating, and dangerous jobs for the benefit of others? Now who is illogical and utopian? If you really think there will be enough people willing to put their lives on the line so others can have fucking luxury goods then you are beyond hope. So the only other option would be that you will force people to do it.

#FF0000

23rd November 2010, 18:03

You dumbfuck, I was obviously talking about the power plant that those belong to. But yeah I get it, you think nuclear waste is harmless and can be dumped into peoples backyards as it is now.

Yeah bro because coal fumes are so much better.

Also have an infraction. This is the Learning forum and you've got to be double-respectful in here.

Statistically? Really? Solar and wind energy are statistically less safe than nuclear power? I'd love to see that statistic.

They are far, far, far, far less efficient and take up a lot of land. In some places, wind power isn't viable.

Actually you're a moron who thinks everyone remotely into environmentalism wants to live in a cave. If you would be so kind as to point out where I was defeatist. I'm not even arguing for an anti-civ or anti-technology position, but of course you would be stupid enough to confuse primitivism with pointing out that nuclear waste is harmful, is shittily managed (storage) and that the nuclear power plants we have are build on a profit motive with suboptimal safety.

The byproducts from natural gas, coal, and oil, are all much more directly damaging and harder to manage than nuclear waste.

#FF0000

23rd November 2010, 18:03

Holy moron, batman.

Sorry, guy, this isn't allowed in the learning forum. This is a verbal warning.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

23rd November 2010, 18:09

I have done no such thing, what I have argued is that technology is inherently alienating. But anyhow, what do I propose? I dunno, not mining I guess?

Also, "increase productivity"? This is not the goal of my revolution.

So in your revolution, society lacks any minerals? and nothing is done to increase the apauling rates of productivity in industries and workplaces under capitalism? What will we be doing in your revolution? Building mud huts and hunting deer?

The Douche

23rd November 2010, 18:09

Sorry, guy, this isn't allowed in the learning forum. This is a verbal warning.

Ok, fair enough, is Jazzrat recieving either a verbal warning or infraction for language such as "ignorant prick" or "total moron".

Its not like this language is being exchanged between a long-time member and a new poster, this is a disucssion between people who have been here for quite sometime, are you suggesting that there would be no infractions/warnings issued if this was not in the learning forum? Why is the learning forum sacred ground (especially when the discussion between people with +1000 posts)?

I'm not upset about a verbal warning, or an infraction, but the moderation on this board is so erratic that it makes it difficult to even have a discussion. I mean, really, who care about being called a "dumbfuck" on the internet anyways?

The Douche

23rd November 2010, 18:11

So in your revolution, society lacks any minerals? and nothing is done to increase the apauling rates of productivity in industries and workplaces under capitalism? What will we be doing in your revolution? Building mud huts and hunting deer?

If we can't come up with an alternative to destroying the earth, basing our society off of non-renewable resources, and putting people in danger, then yes, I suppose we will have to live without minerals. (:rolleyes:) Communism is not about productivity, about paychecks, about hours, or vacation time, communism is about ending alienated labor and building a world free of exploitation (and that includes the exploitation of non-humans in my book).

Manic Impressive

23rd November 2010, 18:16

So, we will just have to trust and hope that there will be enough people willing to volunteer to put themselves in dehumanizing, alienating, and dangerous jobs for the benefit of others? Now who is illogical and utopian? If you really think there will be enough people willing to put their lives on the line so others can have fucking luxury goods then you are beyond hope. So the only other option would be that you will force people to do it.

dehumanizing, alienating WHUT!?!?! how are these jobs dehumanizing?
The only reason you may see them as alienating is because of the negative implications enforced by a capitalist society but I repeat this view is anti working class. People will have to fill the jobs available it's a simple fact of a working society.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

23rd November 2010, 18:33

Manic Impressive

23rd November 2010, 18:51

If we can't come up with an alternative to destroying the earth, basing our society off of non-renewable resources, and putting people in danger, then yes, I suppose we will have to live without minerals. (:rolleyes:) Communism is not about productivity, about paychecks, about hours, or vacation time, communism is about ending alienated labor and building a world free of exploitation (and that includes the exploitation of non-humans in my book).

So no Brick walls?
No Comrade Wolfie I'm afraid he's right I just found the passage buried deep within Das Kapital where Marx says that communism is not about the emancipation of the proletariat but is about the emancipation of rocks. Who'da thunk it

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

23rd November 2010, 19:09

No Comrade Wolfie I'm afraid he's right I just found the passage buried deep within Das Kapital where Marx says that communism is not about the emancipation of the proletariat but is about the emancipation of rocks. Who'da thunk it

Well, load-bearing walls certainly are oppressed.

Summerspeaker

23rd November 2010, 19:47

People will have to fill the jobs available it's a simple fact of a working society.

:confused: That sounds like capitalist thinking rather than any communism I'd be behind. Communities may well decide certain jobs are too dangerous, ecologically damaging, and/or unpleasant to continue. I doubt this would end industries such as mining completely but I'm no expert on the details on the process. These kind of decisions can only be really made by those affected and ideally after an in-depth technical study.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd November 2010, 19:48

So, uh, technofetishists, are you going to go into the toxic mines to procure the necessary resources for continued production of high-technology?

If society asked me to devote a small portion of time towards socially useful activities, including mining, why the fuck shouldn't I say yes?

In such a situation it would be highly likely that I would be enjoying the fruits of society's labour, so it is only fair that I contribute.

Not only that, but if we distribute such work on a lottery basis, with every capable adult automatically entered, there's your motive for having decent safey systems and procedures in place.

If we can't come up with an alternative to destroying the earth, basing our society off of non-renewable resources, and putting people in danger, then yes, I suppose we will have to live without minerals. (:rolleyes:) Communism is not about productivity, about paychecks, about hours, or vacation time, communism is about ending alienated labor and building a world free of exploitation (and that includes the exploitation of non-humans in my book).

You don't need technology to exploit non-humans and in your proposed society there would be no mechanisms to prevent such exploitation.

Manic Impressive

23rd November 2010, 20:28

:confused: That sounds like capitalist thinking rather than any communism I'd be behind. Communities may well decide certain jobs are too dangerous, ecologically damaging, and/or unpleasant to continue. I doubt this would end industries such as mining completely but I'm no expert on the details on the process. These kind of decisions can only be really made by those affected and ideally after an in-depth technical study.
I'm sorry you got that impression from what I wrote it was not my intention I was just trying to keep it short as I'm really tired. What I'm saying is there are jobs in society which are not going to be fun or exciting but still need to be done by a person if technology is unable to do the job for us. It is utopian to think that by abolishing class we automatically abolish unpleasant labour. Personally I see everyone getting the resources they need to live comfortably whatever their contribution to society. But there will always be things that some people excel at and things that others won't the main thing is that people get an equal chance to learn different things and find what they are good at.

DaringMehring

23rd November 2010, 20:31

Population stuff

The flaw with what you say is that you assume that technology will not progress ("I can't deal with technologies that don't exist"). In fact, you even assume that a regress is inevitable because fossil fuels will run out.

Technology has been developing at an exponential rate and it is entirely predictable that there will be further progress in food production.

The Malthusian argument is a total failure, for this reason, and has been for hundreds of years.

To fail to see motion in a system is anti-dialectical.

StalinFanboy

23rd November 2010, 20:40

Also have an infraction. This is the Learning forum and you've got to be double-respectful in here.

Really?

He's not the only one throwing around insults. The person he was arguing with was doing it too.

#FF0000

23rd November 2010, 21:38

Report stuff then.

Ovi

23rd November 2010, 23:19

If society asked me to devote a small portion of time towards socially useful activities, including mining, why the fuck shouldn't I say yes?

In such a situation it would be highly likely that I would be enjoying the fruits of society's labour, so it is only fair that I contribute.

Not only that, but if we distribute such work on a lottery basis, with every capable adult automatically entered, there's your motive for having decent safey systems and procedures in place.

So you'll be forced to do a certain task?

No one dumps nuclear waste in people's backyards you irritating prick.

Solar is possibly safer but there have been more accidents that killed workers in wind power than in nuclear power. That makes sense though given that nuclear power plants have been engineered over years to be incredibly safe environments whereas the relative youth of wind turbine technology means less precautions are taken. Then of course there's the environmental impact, too:
http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/img/co2.jpg

Unless I'm mistaken, that graph depends on the amount of energy required to produce solar panels/wind turbines etc. Since most energy today is produced by burning fossil fuel, you find solar pv to be the most damaging of the renewable sources, even though it produces no CO2 itself; thus, solar, wind and nuclear would all have 0g CO2/kWh once we abolish fossil fuel.

They are far, far, far, far less efficient and take up a lot of land. In some places, wind power isn't viable.
Let's not change this into a nuclear vs renewable thread. That discussion was brought tons of times and the anti-renewable energy arguments weren't that solid.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd November 2010, 23:47

So you'll be forced to do a certain task?

I don't think we should be locking up people for refusing to do certain things, but we certainly can make it a socially-disapproved thing to do.

Perhaps we can reflect this by tying it into other aspects of society - if you refuse to work when called to, you get bumped to the bottom of any waiting lists you're on. Or in a less extreme fashion, if you refuse to do something but are willing to do something else, you go down a few places. Individual craftspeople, or perhaps even some worker's collectives, may refuse to serve your lazy ass as a matter of policy.

Ideally, while you wouldn't end up starving or sleeping rough, your life would become much less interesting and exciting. People wouldn't invite you to parties unless they felt sorry for you. I certainly wouldn't. If you're that much of a selfish douche that you won't put in the couple of weeks a year you're asked to do, I wouldn't want much if anything to do with you.

Ovi

24th November 2010, 00:30

I won't start criticizing that position, but what you're saying is not communism, certainly not anarchist communism.

black magick hustla

24th November 2010, 00:32

i always thought unpleasant jobs would be rotated until we found a better solution

Widerstand

24th November 2010, 00:49

Yeah bro because coal fumes are so much better.

Also have an infraction. This is the Learning forum and you've got to be double-respectful in here.

Hey, that's pretty cool how Jazz doesn't get infracted because he's admin and all.

The byproducts from natural gas, coal, and oil, are all much more directly damaging and harder to manage than nuclear waste.

Strawmen burn and make lots of energy, I heard.

24th November 2010, 01:35

I think primitvism is useful because it constantly asks "how?" when we say we want a society of material abundance. As much as I hate to say it primitivists ask really tough questions and that's why I think people get annoyed by them.

The questions they pose are eminently solvable though. Trust me, if you want to get back at a primitivist don't passively aggressively vent about them in a thread, solve a problem.

Sosa

24th November 2010, 01:38

If mining is necessary I don't see why we couldn't have a "draft" so to speak, were every able bodied person could contribute at least some short amount of time to share the burden/responsibility that everyone in the community enjoys. That would seem more fair. Thus everyone has a stake in the working conditions and safety and not ask another person to do something they would not do themselves

synthesis

24th November 2010, 01:45

This is based on the presupposition that neo-litihic/pre-civilization societies were scarcity societies. Which most non-bourgeois anthropologists disagree with. I would encourage you to check out the link I posted earlier to "The Original Affluent Society", or to check out the first half of Zerzan's "Future Primitive" (though I prefer the fist). It is becoming more widely accepted that hunter-gatherer societies were in fact pre-scarcity societies, where people usually did about 4 hours of work a day with the rest reserved for leisure.

So all hunter-gatherer societies were pre-scarcity? :lol:

Ovi

24th November 2010, 02:55

Sosa

24th November 2010, 03:38

What is some people don't use the products that require that resource?

Then I'm sure that there would be a way to exempt them since they don't directly benefit from it or some other arrangement could be worked out. Of course it wouldn't be forced upon them. But mostly everyone benefits either directly or indirectly. This "draft", if you will, would be a social arrangement:

"there's a certain technology that we have that require us to mine for a specific resource, if we want to keep said technology and benefit from it then we all share in the responsibility equally, if not then we abandon said technology"

synthesis

24th November 2010, 04:59

I think a lottery system (akin to jury duty) would be the best, since it would simply allocate labor in terms of demand, but that seems like a topic for a different thread.

#FF0000

24th November 2010, 05:03

Strawmen burn and make lots of energy, I heard.

Well what should we use instead of nuclear power if not for coal, natural gas, or oil?

Solar power and wind power, btw, aren't always viable and can require a lot of room to produce a useful amount of power.

bcbm

24th November 2010, 05:20

I don't think we should be locking up people for refusing to do certain things, but we certainly can make it a socially-disapproved thing to do.

Perhaps we can reflect this by tying it into other aspects of society - if you refuse to work when called to, you get bumped to the bottom of any waiting lists you're on. Or in a less extreme fashion, if you refuse to do something but are willing to do something else, you go down a few places. Individual craftspeople, or perhaps even some worker's collectives, may refuse to serve your lazy ass as a matter of policy.

Ideally, while you wouldn't end up starving or sleeping rough, your life would become much less interesting and exciting. People wouldn't invite you to parties unless they felt sorry for you. I certainly wouldn't. If you're that much of a selfish douche that you won't put in the couple of weeks a year you're asked to do, I wouldn't want much if anything to do with you.

what a relief, i was worried for a long time that in a communist society people wouldn't have to be coerced into going to shitty jobs

Summerspeaker

24th November 2010, 06:15

I suspect positive measures to encourage participation in desired but less pleasant work might be both more humane and even more effective than cultivated scorn. I'm not strictly opposed to latter - particularly in moderation - but it's dangerous road to travel. The William Morris notion of work as a pleasure appeals to me. Cleaning toilets and digging ditches can be fulfilling experiences if undertaken in an atmosphere of camaraderie and freedom. The present alienation and coercion involved hinder productivity as much as or more than they compel it. The conditions of subservience encourage us to just do the minimum required to please our masters and keep the job or pass the class.

The Douche

24th November 2010, 07:09

how are these jobs dehumanizing?

Yeah, what's dehumanizing about forcing somebody to submerge themselves in the depths of the earth to extract non-renewable materials for the creation of luxury goods and fuels which further damage the planet.:rolleyes: Is this a real question?

The only reason you may see them as alienating is because of the negative implications enforced by a capitalist society but I repeat this view is anti working class. People will have to fill the jobs available it's a simple fact of a working society.

I really mean this in the least snarky way possible, but do you have any idea of what "alienation" means in the context of marxism? It is a marxist concept...

No Comrade Wolfie I'm afraid he's right I just found the passage buried deep within Das Kapital where Marx says that communism is not about the emancipation of the proletariat but is about the emancipation of rocks. Who'da thunk it

1) I am not convinced that you know what "the emancipation of the proletariat" means, since I don't believe you understand what marx means by alienation.

2) The idea that the inhabitants of the planet can somehow be free while ignoring the eco-system that they are apart of, by destroying it, seems foolish, to say the least.

You don't need technology to exploit non-humans and in your proposed society there would be no mechanisms to prevent such exploitation.

Just what is my proposed society?

If mining is necessary I don't see why we couldn't have a "draft" so to speak, were every able bodied person could contribute at least some short amount of time to share the burden/responsibility that everyone in the community enjoys.

I refuse to participate in the needless destruction of my eco-system, and refuse to put my life at risk in order to provide things like luxury goods and non-renewable/damaging materials, and post-revolution would do everything in my power to organize resistance around such a position.

So all hunter-gatherer societies were pre-scarcity?

Yeah there was nothing bad about primitive communism, it was a utopia, just like there will be nothing bad about communism, and it will be a utopia.:rolleyes:

The ammount of authoritarian anti-communism rearing its head in here is pretty frustrating, but honestly, I'm not suprised...the left in action.:rolleyes:

synthesis

24th November 2010, 07:11

what a relief, i was worried for a long time that in a communist society people wouldn't have to be coerced into going to shitty jobs

I don't have a problem with it as long as the coercion is distributed evenly among the world's population, including ourselves.

synthesis

24th November 2010, 07:12

Yeah there was nothing bad about primitive communism, it was a utopia, just like there will be nothing bad about communism, and it will be a utopia.

What on earth are you talking about?

#FF0000

24th November 2010, 07:15

The ammount of authoritarian anti-communism rearing its head in here is pretty frustrating, but honestly, I'm not suprised...the left in action.

You're saying we should live without metal and people are disagreeing with you.

the left in action :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The Douche

24th November 2010, 07:19

You're saying we should live without metal and people are disagreeing with you.

the left in action :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Quote to back this up?

Nah, just talking out your ass, so that more people can continue this accusation. Clearly if I was actually advocating primitivism I would've been restricted by this point.

But the point still stands that supposed communists in this thread believe in forcing people to use their labor power for things they don't wish to do. That is anti-communist and authoritarian.

What on earth are you talking about?

Of course there was fucking scarcity pre-civilization, just as there will be scarcity post-revolution. Things like famine, drought etc cannot be avoided. The point is, its wrong to portray pre-civilization societies as constantly on the verge of starvation, which is all I said in the first fucking place.

#FF0000

24th November 2010, 07:20

Yeah, what's dehumanizing about forcing somebody to submerge themselves in the depths of the earth to extract non-renewable materials for the creation of luxury goods and fuels which further damage the planet. Is this a real question?

You said mining is bad.

We get metal through mining.

Maybe I misunderstood you or something.

The Douche

24th November 2010, 07:23

You said mining is bad.

We get metal through mining.

Maybe I misunderstood you or something.

I said its dehumanizing and perpetuates the use of non-renewable materials and energies. If you don't see how thats true, then there you're just lying to yourself.

synthesis

24th November 2010, 07:31

Of course there was fucking scarcity pre-civilization, just as there will be scarcity post-revolution. Things like famine, drought etc cannot be avoided.

Of course they can be avoided - but you'd need both socialism and technology to do it.

The point is, its wrong to portray pre-civilization societies as constantly on the verge of starvation, which is all I said in the first fucking place.

:lol: You said:

...hunter-gatherer societies were in fact pre-scarcity societies, where people usually did about 4 hours of work a day with the rest reserved for leisure.

As a side note, you should really consider taking something to lower your blood pressure, although that would require the use of modern medicine. In any case, I don't know how you think you're going to convince anyone of anything with the tone that you take here.

#FF0000

24th November 2010, 07:36

I said its dehumanizing and perpetuates the use of non-renewable materials and energies. If you don't see how thats true, then there you're just lying to yourself.

Yeah no mining sucks.

I doonnn'tt seeee how it "perpetuates" the use of things like coal though but yeah.

Sosa

24th November 2010, 07:50

But the point still stands that supposed communists in this thread believe in forcing people to use their labor power for things they don't wish to do. That is anti-communist and authoritarian..

who? I don't see anyone here advocating that position

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

24th November 2010, 07:50

I said its dehumanizing and perpetuates the use of non-renewable materials and energies. If you don't see how thats true, then there you're just lying to yourself.

You appear to be looking at how mining is done today and assuming that it will be exactly the same under communism. On what basis?

Jazzratt

24th November 2010, 11:53

You appear to be looking at how mining is done today and assuming that it will be exactly the same under communism. On what basis? From what I've gathered by reading other posts on this thread it's on the basis that as soon as we hit a stateless classless society all the advancements we've been making will simply cease to be and thinking otherwise is wishful thinking akin to religious anticipation of the messiah.

ellipsis

24th November 2010, 15:55

How could mining be done in any way that it didn't deplete resouces? That is by definition what mining is, extraction of finite earth bound materials. How would the other, communist mining work?
Jazzratt what advancements in mining technology will make resouces infinite so we can keep building it same things, using the same materials in the same ammounts.

Also broader question, do u see capitalism falling in th next 50 years? Hopefully
but if it doesn't, when we do have socialism, the planet is gonna be Fucked! and then we are going to develop all of these awesome sustainable technology and compostable xboxes? After capitali fails? Then how long will these technologies take to develop and to replace all current tech?

#FF0000

24th November 2010, 16:13

ellipsis

24th November 2010, 17:13

asteroid mining

but real talk I don't think we're about to uh, run out of iron on Earth or anything like that.

Iron maybe not, but oil, chromium, uranium, platinum, gold, rare earth minerals(see below), including rare earth magnets, phosphates, peat, guano, etc for sure. You may not think that but finite means just that, IT RUNS OUT.

http://www.ucolick.org/%7Ede/Snarf/nauru2.jpg
Completely depleted island of Naru, i.e. this is what mining does, ore is non-renewable.

Water is the most abundant substance on earth but yet FRESH, HEALTHY, POTABLE water is hard to come by, especially occurring naturally, especially in the Global South. So if we can fuck up the water and the air, I am pretty sure we will figure out a way to fuck up iron too.

As resources become more scares, extractions become mostly dangerous and environmentally degrading, case in point deep water horizon. Also resource wars, see the playstation wars.

In the rugged volcanic mountains of the Congo the conflict known as Africa's World War continues to smolder after ten grueling years. The conflict earned its name because at the height of the war eight African nations and over 25 militias were in the combatant mix. But more recently the conflict was given another name: The PlayStation War. The name came about because of a black metallic ore called coltan. Extensive evidence shows that during the war hundreds of millions of dollars worth of coltan was stolen from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The UN and several NGOs claim some of the most active thieves were the Rwandan military, several militias supported by the Rwandan government, and also a number of western-based mining companies, metal brokers, and metal processors that had allegedly partnered with these Rwandan factions.
After it is refined, coltan becomes a bluish-gray powder called tantalum, which is defined as a transition metal. For the most part, tantalum has one significant use: to satisfy the West's insatiable appetite for personal technology. Tantalum is used to make cell phones, laptops and other electronics made, for example, by SONY, a multi-billion dollar multinational based in Japan that manufactures the iconic PlayStation, a video game console. And while allegations of plundering coltan from a nation in desperate need of revenue seem bad enough, the UN also discovered that Rwandan troops and rebels were using prisoners-of-war and children to mine for the "black gold."

towards freedom (http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1352/1)

The bold part should resonant with members of the gaming class on this forum.

So if anybody know about alternative technology to replace coltan in electronics, let me know so i can have the design for communist electronics ready.

The Douche

24th November 2010, 17:20

Of course they can be avoided - but you'd need both socialism and technology to do it.

:rolleyes: You can control the planet?

As a side note, you should really consider taking something to lower your blood pressure, although that would require the use of modern medicine. In any case, I don't know how you think you're going to convince anyone of anything with the tone that you take here.

Yes, in general pre-civ societies were pre-scarcity, scarcity is largely the creation of civilization (it predates capital of course). Of course there are exceptions to every generality. As far as convincing anybody here? Hahahaha, that was never, is never, and never will be my goal. The left is so far beyond hope that I would never waste my time. I'm here for my own personal enjoyment, to read the posts of the few people I find interesting/agree with, and so that lurkers can be exposed to other ideas.

I doonnn'tt seeee how it "perpetuates" the use of things like coal though but yeah.

All those minerals in the earth a finite resource, we have to stop using them if we're going to advance, or even survive.

who? I don't see anyone here advocating that position

You yourself advocated it here:

"there's a certain technology that we have that require us to mine for a specific resource, if we want to keep said technology and benefit from it then we all share in the responsibility equally, if not then we abandon said technology"

What will you do when you're faced with massive numbers of people who refuse to particpate in the work you and others (even a majority, as if majorities are sacred) deem necessary?

You appear to be looking at how mining is done today and assuming that it will be exactly the same under communism. On what basis?

I conceded many pages ago that I have faith in people's ability to discover new ways of doing things like mining. But until they do, I can only work with what I've got, and the way it is conducted today is not acceptable and I would never participate. Also, new mining technology does not solve the problem of the destruction of our earth or our reliance on things that are not renewable.

From what I've gathered by reading other posts on this thread it's on the basis that as soon as we hit a stateless classless society all the advancements we've been making will simply cease to be and thinking otherwise is wishful thinking akin to religious anticipation of the messiah.

:rolleyes:

but real talk I don't think we're about to uh, run out of iron on Earth or anything like that.

We certainly can polute the earth to the point where it will not be able to sustain civilization any longer, at which point this debate means nothing, because, like it or not, we will live in a neo-lithic state.