isn't Anarcho-primitivism self defeating?

[Princess Luna]

Even if they do return the world to some Neolithic paradise , whats to keep people from just building civilization back up brick by brick? since agriculture is better then hunting and gathering because of more food production and better stability , people will start to use it again , and once you have people settling down in one spot, you will have towns and cities start to develop.

[bcbm]

early agricultural living was actually pretty shitty compared to gatherer-hunting lifestyles and likely adopted out of necessity.

[Princess Luna]

how was it more shitty? if you are hunting wild pigs you have no control over them and if the population starts to decline for what ever reason , that means less pork for you. If you are raising domestic pigs then you have much better control over the breeding which means more food , same logic can be used with wild plants vs. human grown.

[bcbm]

harder work, more disease, class society, etc

[Princess Luna]

harder work, more disease, class society, etc
harder work? i think wondering though the woods looking for wild animals and plants to eat would a lot harder then eating the animals or plants you have stored in or near your village , as for disease i really don't know much about that and assuming staying in one place you would have to deal with more waste then people who move alot i will give that one to , and classes could exist just as easy in a hunter-gather society as a argicultural one.

[Dimentio]

In fact, bcbm is correct. The hunter-gatherer society was successful. Four hours of work per day, lots of lazing around and not doing anything, then parties and story-telling.

The thing was, it was so successful that it broke it's own limits. At the end, it was probably quite much scarcity. Which led to the Neolithic Revolution, since that would give people a rational reason to live of the soil.

At the same time, anarcho-primitivism is crap. Mostly because most of us have to die in order for it to be realised. If people want to live it, then fine. But don't make them force us living that way.

[bcbm]

harder work? i think wondering though the woods looking for wild animals and plants to eat would a lot harder then eating the animals or plants you have stored in or near your village

picking nuts and berries and hunting animals involves astronomically less labor than tilling, planting, weeding, harvesting, irrigating, rearing animals, etc.


as for disease i really don't know much about that and assuming staying in one place you would have to deal with more waste then people who move alot i will give that one to

it also has to do with the proximity of humans to each other, and to animals.


and classes could exist just as easy in a hunter-gather society as a argicultural one.

this doesn't really seem to be the case judging from the anthropological and other evidence available to us. beyond that, i think it is clearly easier for classes to develop when you are tied to a land base, can have a surplus allowing division of labor and so on.

[Dean]

early agricultural living was actually pretty shitty compared to gatherer-hunting lifestyles and likely adopted out of necessity.
A key point. Hunting-gathering is unsustainable. Society tends towards the sustainable in times of necessity: i.e., communism.

EDIT: I see you pointed this out above, Dimentio. Though strictly speaking, people wouldn't have to die out - its conceivable that population growth can (and ultimately will) decline to match sustainable rates. Russia is experiencing this trend at the moment, for instance.

[Dean]

harder work? i think wondering though the woods looking for wild animals and plants to eat would a lot harder then eating the animals or plants you have stored in or near your village , as for disease i really don't know much about that and assuming staying in one place you would have to deal with more waste then people who move alot i will give that one to , and classes could exist just as easy in a hunter-gather society as a argicultural one.

Well BCBM is right if we are talking about a sustainable society - which Hunting-Gathering was at the time.

However, today, it is unfeasible to live this way. The only possible way to return to that kind of model would be a massive reduction in human population and contact.

[#FF0000]

also all it would take for an anarcho-primitivist society to fall apart is for someone to go off on a gardening kick.

[Dimentio]

also all it would take for an anarcho-primitivist society to fall apart is for someone to go off on a gardening kick.

Not really. But it's not realistic since a hunter-gatherer society could support like 5-10 million people worldwide.

That would mean a mass-death.

[#FF0000]

Not really.

It was a joke, silly.


But it's not realistic since a hunter-gatherer society could support like 5-10 million people worldwide.

That would mean a mass-death

So, do primitivists have any responses for this? I've never really gotten one.

[Dimentio]

It was a joke, silly.



So, do primitivists have any responses for this? I've never really gotten one.

Those who are hardcore say it will happen by itself, like Derrick Jensen and John Zerzan. Anarcho-primitivism is a lifestyle which is a signal about how "good" and "principled" the individual upholding those beliefs is. Moreover, it tends to give access to bourgeois media, since the ruling paradigm wants the alternatives to be caricatures unable to gain any power.

In reality, the Soviet Union should have used that. Allowed for example feudalists and religious nuts to write editorials in the Pravda instead of asyluming them. If lunatics are allowed to appear as the mainstream of the opposition, it will reduce the attraction of the opposition.

Pentti Linkola wants to achieve it by genocide, but he is not an anarcho-primitivist and wants an authoritarian agricultural society where the elite has access to modern weapons which should be used to repress the masses.

[NGNM85]

Pentti Linkola wants to achieve it by genocide, but he is not an anarcho-primitivist and wants an authoritarian agricultural society where the elite has access to modern weapons which should be used to repress the masses.

He must be a blast at parties.

[Dimentio]

He must be a blast at parties.

He is hardcore. Is living in a little cabin and is adding on to his age benefits by selling fish at the square in the local town.

He also inspired Pekka-Eric Auvinen.

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

[bcbm]

So, do primitivists have any responses for this? I've never really gotten one.

depends. if you think industrial society will collapse because it is unsustainable than basically there will be mass death, forcing people into different existence. or some suggest voluntary population decrease- people have 1/0 children or something.

[The Douche]

I would like it if Linokla wasn't even mentioned in threads about primitivism (since he has nothing to do with it) but I am sincerely glad to see that it is now openly acknowledged that he is not a primitivist.:)

[NGNM85]

depends. if you think industrial society will collapse because it is unsustainable than basically there will be mass death, forcing people into different existence. or some suggest voluntary population decrease- people have 1/0 children or something.

Generally, the earth's population growth has been in decline since the 60's. The biggest explosions are in the poorest countries in the Third World. In the West population growth is fairly minor. If we can manage to improve living conditions in the poorer parts of the world we can expect to see a further decline. However, I do think people need to change their thinking about having children; it's a privilege, not a right. People treat it like it's something they're just supposed to do, like learning to drive, or getting a job. Or they just want that parent status. People need to take child rearing as seriously as a decision on a capital case.

[#FF0000]

it's a privilege, not a right.

I seriously hope you mis-spoke here.

[Forward Union]

Even if they do return the world to some Neolithic paradise , whats to keep people from just building civilization back up brick by brick? since agriculture is better then hunting and gathering because of more food production and better stability , people will start to use it again , and once you have people settling down in one spot, you will have towns and cities start to develop.

Well, actually no, it's not "better" ...to begin with anyway. In fact, if you do a little research into the agricultural revolution, no one really has a clue how or why it started. Really, there is no 'popular theory'. The most widely believed one is that people began planting things in order to ferment them and get drunk. Which lead to static societies which required agriculture.

However, agriculture is ALOT more work than hunting and gathering, anthropologists believe that hunter gatherer humans lives lives of plenty, with only a few hours spent hunting, and most of their day spent on recreational activities. They were also physically fitter and healthier than most humans today (and ever in history since). Farming brings along crop failure, dysentery, disease, property, and gender division. It also caused women to endure pain in childbirth. "Throughout the development of sedentary societies, disease spread more rapidly than it had during the time in which hunter-gatherer societies existed. Inadequate sanitary practices and the domestication of animals may explain the rise in deaths and sickness during the Neolithic Revolution" (wiki article)

It's only after some thousands of years that the benefits of agriculture can be felt, and only by some parts of the global population. I am not a primitivist, most of what I am talking about here is scientific anthropology.

So saying it would happen again is interesting, because we don't know why it started at all in the first place.

[Forward Union]

I seriously hope you mis-spoke here.

I think he meant "not a duty" given the following sentence

[#FF0000]

I think he meant "not a duty" given the following sentence

That's what I figured.

[The Douche]

The whole "civilization will happen again" line of thought ignores that anarcho-primitivists adovcate an actual political ideology. They believe in a conscious reorientation towards the primitive in order to construct a "future primitive" (not just a return to H-G society).

Primitivism is about building a movement against civilization and learning the skills needed to survive and prosper afterwards. Its more than just "the sky is falling" or going on camping trips. (though granted, there are lots of people in the movement who pretty much fall into those categories and are less serious revolutionaries)

[NGNM85]

I seriously hope you mis-spoke here.

I thought it was pretty clear, but I'll clarify. A baby is not like a puppy, it is not an accessory, it is a human being. When you decide to have a child, as I was saying, it should be taken as seriously as a verdict on a capital case. I both circumstances you are deciding another person's fate, something which carries an enormous amount of responsibility. The key question should be, first; Do I have what it takes to raise a child? (The patience, the responsibility, the time, the resources.) Second; Am I willing to expend all of those resources to make sure my child is as healthy, and happy as possible? Am I willing to devote my last breath to making sure they have the best life I can give them? Anyone who doesn't think that way probably shouldn't be a parent. People seem to have this cavalier attitude like they're just entitled, they're missing the point that it isn't about them.

[Quail]

However, agriculture is ALOT more work than hunting and gathering, anthropologists believe that hunter gatherer humans lives lives of plenty, with only a few hours spent hunting, and most of their day spent on recreational activities. They were also physically fitter and healthier than most humans today (and ever in history since). Farming brings along crop failure, dysentery, disease, property, and gender division. It also caused women to endure pain in childbirth. "Throughout the development of sedentary societies, disease spread more rapidly than it had during the time in which hunter-gatherer societies existed. Inadequate sanitary practices and the domestication of animals may explain the rise in deaths and sickness during the Neolithic Revolution" (wiki article)
What? So before agriculture, it didn't hurt to give birth?

[Forward Union]

What? So before agriculture, it didn't hurt to give birth?

That's what I said yea. Everyone in the anthropological word accepts this.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4803164-why-pelvic-size-decreased-causing-more-painful-childbirth-as-diets-changed

[#FF0000]

That's what I said yea. Everyone in the anthropological word accepts this.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4803164-why-pelvic-size-decreased-causing-more-painful-childbirth-as-diets-changed

whhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

[bcbm]

That's what I said yea. Everyone in the anthropological word accepts this.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4803164-why-pelvic-size-decreased-causing-more-painful-childbirth-as-diets-changed

its also in the bible

[psgchisolm]

its also in the bible
bullshit.

[bcbm]

genesis 3:16-19 niv

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”


child birth pain, the beginnings of gender division and patriarchy and agriculture

[psgchisolm]

genesis 3:16-19 niv

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”


child birth pain, the beginnings of gender division and patriarchy and agriculture
This in the biblical sense came after he kicked them out of heaven. Nowhere did it say that farming was the sole cause of a womans pain. verse 17-19 he was talking solely to adam. So no even in the bible farming had nothing to do with child birth pains. You are making bullshit up now. The only reason they had to farm was because they were kicked out of Eden and nothing was provided for them anymore. They were not "hunter gatherer" in the send as we know it mostly because it was provided for them.

[The Douche]

This in the biblical sense came after he kicked them out of heaven. Nowhere did it say that farming was the sole cause of a womans pain. verse 17-19 he was talking solely to adam. So no even in the bible farming had nothing to do with child birth pains. You are making bullshit up now. The only reason they had to farm was because they were kicked out of Eden and nothing was provided for them anymore. They were not "hunter gatherer" in the send as we know it mostly because it was provided for them.

If we look at the bible like any other creation story, then yes, Adam/Eve are primitive man, they exist off of/in harmony with their environment. They are hunter gatherers. It was provided for them? No shit, the earth provides what hunter gatherers need.

Once the original sin was committed and they were no longer able to live in harmony with the creator (i.e. they had to practice agriculture) there were a number of other punishments included.


Most creation stories/fall stories attribute the pain in childbirth with the end of H-G society, and yes, anthropological sources back this up. Ancient stories/religions didn't come out of nowhere, they were explanations for real life, y'know.

[hatzel]

This in the biblical sense came after he kicked them out of heaven.

Wait wait wait wait wait...when did that happen? :confused:

[psgchisolm]

If we look at the bible like any other creation story, then yes, Adam/Eve are primitive man, they exist off of/in harmony with their environment. They are hunter gatherers. It was provided for them? No shit, the earth provides what hunter gatherers need.

Once the original sin was committed and they were no longer able to live in harmony with the creator (i.e. they had to practice agriculture) there were a number of other punishments included.


Most creation stories/fall stories attribute the pain in childbirth with the end of H-G society, and yes, anthropological sources back this up. Ancient stories/religions didn't come out of nowhere, they were explanations for real life, y'know.
I'm pretty sure I'm aware of how religions form. It's hard to call adam and eve "hunter" and gatherer since they didn't have to hunt. From what I remember in the bible they only ate fruit from the garden?

Wait wait wait wait wait...when did that happen? :confused:
mistype I meant eden.

[hatzel]

It's hard to call adam and eve "hunter" and gatherer since they didn't have to hunt. From what I remember in the bible they only ate fruit from the garden?

Indeed. Meat was forbidden to them, so really they were...just gatherers...do we suppose that there was a predominantly 'gatherer' culture before the 'hunter-gatherer' culture emerged? One could assume so, actually...wait, why is this the topic of this thread all of a sudden? :confused:

[psgchisolm]

Indeed. Meat was forbidden to them, so really they were...just gatherers...do we suppose that there was a predominantly 'gatherer' culture before the 'hunter-gatherer' culture emerged? One could assume so, actually...wait, why is this the topic of this thread all of a sudden? :confused:
I look at most posts and see the same thing happening in the first pages. If anything gathering most likely came before HG because early humans hadn't learned the technique of tool and weapon making. Anyway back on topic... what was the topic again?

[#FF0000]

I look at most posts and see the same thing happening in the first pages. If anything gathering most likely came before HG because early humans hadn't learned the technique of tool and weapon making. Anyway back on topic... what was the topic again?

Even when hunting did become a thing, I am pretty sure gathering always accounted for the bulk of the food.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

not like a puppy, it is not an accessory

I'm not a primitivist, but this is a disturbing indication of our estrangement from other living beings.

[Dimentio]

A key point. Hunting-gathering is unsustainable. Society tends towards the sustainable in times of necessity: i.e., communism.

EDIT: I see you pointed this out above, Dimentio. Though strictly speaking, people wouldn't have to die out - its conceivable that population growth can (and ultimately will) decline to match sustainable rates. Russia is experiencing this trend at the moment, for instance.

Russia is declining because of high mortality rates amongst males (alcoholism and violence mostly).

[Forward Union]

I would like to think that most of us here are mature enough to read the old testament Bible stories and recognise that (religious content aside) they are some sort of genuine folklore of theri time. As we know, the Adam and Eve story long predates Christianity, and even Judaism. It was of course, an old Sumerian tale, probably not even that similar to the Christian version.

I wouldn't be the first one to draw the obvious parallels between the Garden of Eden story and the Agricultural revolution. The Garden of Eden, it has been suggested, might have been a metaphor for hunter gather societies, full of plenty. Because apart from the punishment of Child birth pain, Man was also forced to work the land as a result of the 'original sin'. We also see the rise of property causing conflict in the story of Cain and Abel

After all, the story is much older than the bible, and some bronze age human wrote it, and he or she must have had some inspiration from somewhere.

[Quail]

That's what I said yea. Everyone in the anthropological word accepts this.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4803164-why-pelvic-size-decreased-causing-more-painful-childbirth-as-diets-changed
Okay, fair enough. A bigger pelvis makes childbirth easier and so less painful.

However, I refuse to believe that there was no pain involved. Giving birth is kind of like having really bad period pains. If this was easier and quicker, there would be less pain, which would be more manageable, but you're saying that before agriculture, childbirth wasn't painful at all. If my hips had been wider and labour shorter/easier, the contractions would still have hurt and I would still have been left feeling pretty sore down there afterwards.

[Forward Union]

Okay, fair enough. A bigger pelvis makes childbirth easier and so less painful.

However, I refuse to believe that there was no pain involved. Giving birth is kind of like having really bad period pains. If this was easier and quicker, there would be less pain, which would be more manageable, but you're saying that before agriculture, childbirth wasn't painful at all. If my hips had been wider and labour shorter/easier, the contractions would still have hurt and I would still have been left feeling pretty sore down there afterwards.

Fair enough, maybe. The only point I was making is that the immediate shift from a Hunter Gatherer society to an Agricultural one wouldn't have had any short term benefits. In the very short term, it would have made life harder for people. And I don't think Mr and Mrs Og thought ahead 3000 years and decided "Well maybe agriculture will one day allow us to have larger populations and begin building pyramids" So, it's hard to imagine what might have lead our ancestors to Agriculture. If the Primitivists had their way and we all went back to the Pleistocene, it's far from inevitable that we would end up redeveloping agriculture. At least, in order to make such a statement we would have to actually know why they started farming in the first place. Human remains can be found existing as far back as 200,000 years. Agriculture has existed for, maybe 6000. That means that for over 19000 years, humans didn't bother planting anything on a noticeable scale.

Lefties have to remember that the idea of history being a straight line is only a (good) model, which starts with the dawn of civilisation, but for nearly two hundred thousand years Humans lived without agriculture or technology, as animals.

Again, I don't support returning to this at all I oppose primitivism. But I don't oppose anthropological science. I'm not really sure if these facts I'm digging up have any implications for our line of politics. Probably not, except perhaps for charting the rise of Gender division, territorialism etc.

[Forward Union]

On a lighter note, there is an "Alcohol theory" which suggests that while hunter gatherers would carry fruit, berrys and hops in satchels, they would ferment, making alcohol. In response they would bury these satchels to try and ferment them more. Which lead to them deliberately manipulating plant life in order to get more fruit to ferment.

This lead to farming. :cool:

And there is a lot of anthropological evidence that Cave men used to trip their balls on drugs.

[hatzel]

And there is a lot of anthropological evidence that Cave men used to trip their balls on drugs.

Oh, that's in the Bible, too :laugh:


Lolz at me...:rolleyes:

[The Douche]

And there is a lot of anthropological evidence that Cave men used to trip their balls on drugs.

Stoned ape theory is pretty sweet.

[Delirium]

Alot of our modern day examples of hunter gatherer societies are not all that accurate. These are people who have been pushed to the extremes of habitibility for thousands of years by civilization.

In a world where the biosphere has not been raped by 5,000 of human civilization and agriculture isnt taking up nearly all fertile areas, i'd imagine life would be much easier than it is for contemporary primitives.

[Forward Union]

Alot of our modern day examples of hunter gatherer societies are not all that accurate. These are people who have been pushed to the extremes of habitibility for thousands of years by civilization.

In a world where the biosphere has not been raped by 5,000 of human civilization and agriculture isnt taking up nearly all fertile areas, i'd imagine life would be much easier than it is for contemporary primitives.

Well yea, the only places hunter gatherers exist now are in places that are so barren and destitute that agriculture wouldn't have worked there anyway, such as the arctic regions or say, African plains.

So seeing how rough the lives of these people is, is not a good indicator of what original hunter gatherers would have lived like.

On this topic; the BBC just released new of the most recently discovered Footage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12360013) uncontacted tribe in the amazon
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12360013)

[Revolution starts with U]

Childbirth would have been painful going all the way back to Homo Erectus, long before agriculture. I don't see how you're tying tghose 2 together. Austraulopithicus would have been the last hominid who's head was smaller than the birth cavity.
And the benefit of agriculture is surplus. Sure, the work is harder. But you can assure a more stable food supply. You also gain trade goods, which creates prestige amongst the other tribes.
Agriculture didn't develop suddenly in 9k bce. It was a slow progress. You can watch it, but it's a lot harder to detect than hard farming. But you can see the migration of many planets mirrored the migrations of early hominids.
Interestingly enough, tho I wouldn't call this scientific, an old native american legend (from the Lake Superior region) attributes the development of agriculture to a medicine man who fasted and meditated for a few days :D

[hatzel]

an old native american legend (from the Lake Superior region) attributes the development of agriculture to a medicine man who fasted and meditated for a few days :D

Clearly true. Or, perhaps a metaphor for everybody being hungry (fasting), then coming up with agriculture. Definitely!

Anyway, 'New World' agriculture is pretty darn fascinating. Perhaps less so in North America, but I'm reading a book about Latin American history at the moment, which really makes you think how impressive it is that there are people growing corn and potatoes and stuff so high up in the Andes. I know the climates are different, but height-wise it would be like having a farm up on the top of Mt Blanc or something (clearly speaking as a European). If that's not a momentous achievement, I don't know what is! :)

[Havet]

There are, accordingly, several economic schools among Anarchists; there are Anarchist Individualists, Anarchist Mutualists, Anarchist Communists and Anarchist Socialists.

In times past these several schools have bitterly denounced each other and mutually refused to recognize each other as Anarchists at all. The more narrowminded on both sides still do so; true, they do not consider it is narrow-mindedness, but simply a firm and solid grasp of the truth, which does not permit of tolerance towards error. (!!!) This has been the attitude of the bigot in all ages, and Anarchism no more than any other new doctrine has escaped its bigots. Each of these fanatical adherents of either collectivism or individualism believes that no Anarchism is possible without that particular economic system as its guarantee, and is of'course thoroughly justified
from his own standpoint.

With the extension of what Comrade Brown calls the New Spirit, however, this old narrowness is yielding to the broader, kindlier and far more reasonable idea, that all these economic conceptions may be experimented with, and there is nothing un-Anarchistic about any of them until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling persons to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to.

Just thought i'd drop in a gem from the 19th century

[Drosophila]

I see myself as somewhat of an anarcho-primitivist. Nature brings down entire societies. The way I see it, humans can't survive unless they live in harmony with nature.

[Viet Minh]

Not really. But it's not realistic since a hunter-gatherer society could support like 5-10 million people worldwide.

That would mean a mass-death.

I'm not an anarcho-primitivist, I don't actually know that much about their ideology/ philosphy, but I doubt they are suggesting the enitre World should be anarcho-primitivist! It wouldn't work in urbanized areas, you'd need a remote region in somewhere like Brazil, Russia, Canada, Australia, parts of the US. Australia or Brazil might work best, both have an abundance of wildlife and surviving aborignal culture. And the entire world population of Anarcho primitivists probably wouldn't fill a small tent :D Some survivalist cults could be accused of having anarcho-primitivist tendencies perhaps.

Anyway all leftists need to work together, then divide the regions by political affiliation. Alaska will be Anarcho Primitivist, Texas will be Stalinist, and Californiay can be Maoist (just cuz fuck 'em :P )

[ComradeTim]

Anarcho-primitivism is not sustainable in any way in our present world. At least not in a political sense. On an individual level it could still work, but not as a political movement.

[Sentinel]

He (Pentti Linkola) must be a blast at parties.A comrade of mine from Finland told me that a guy he cooperates locally with, who in turn is in some kind of green party with all kinds of weird elements, had once invited Linkola to hold a speech at some event and he had stayed at his place.

Now, apparently that guy hasn't showered in years -- it had taken days to get rid of the stench from the apartment, not to even mention the bed. :ohmy:

***

As for the topic at hand, obviously civilisation would be rebuilt if any humans survived a disaster/genocide of the kind primitivists strive for. A forced pre-industrial society of the kind Linkola advocates would be overthrown, but it's a sheer absurdity and would never take place outside his fantasy anyway.

[Drosophila]

Anarcho-primitivism couldn't work in the current state. True. I'll admit that it is just a big dream; A paradise.

[Viet Minh]

A comrade of mine from Finland told me that a guy he cooperates locally with, who in turn is in some kind of green party with all kinds of weird elements, had once invited Linkola to hold a speech at some event and he had stayed at his place.

Now, apparently that guy hasn't showered in years -- it had taken days to get rid of the stench from the apartment, not to even mention the bed. :ohmy:

***

As for the topic at hand, obviously civilisation would be rebuilt if any humans survived a disaster/genocide of the kind primitivists strive for. A forced pre-industrial society of the kind Linkola advocates would be overthrown, but it's a sheer absurdity and would never take place outside his fantasy anyway.

The Scottish Greens mp Robin Harper got scurvy because of his bad diet, his was the only case that century or soemthing. So much for green healthy living.


Anarcho-primitivism couldn't work in the current state. True. I'll admit that it is just a big dream; A paradise.

There are still tribal cultures in some parts of the world who are entirely self-sufficient, but it woulodn't work globally or in any extensively urbanised regions.

[Magón]

Anarcho-primitivism is not sustainable in any way in our present world. At least not in a political sense. On an individual level it could still work, but not as a political movement.

I don't think you'll find any true Anarcho-Primitivist in a political seat, or trying to be political, except for when say the government is tearing down tress or whatever, and they go to protest the act. You won't find any actual Primitivists in a political office seat, or running a political line.

[nuisance]

Fight Club.

[Dimentio]

Well yea, the only places hunter gatherers exist now are in places that are so barren and destitute that agriculture wouldn't have worked there anyway, such as the arctic regions or say, African plains.

So seeing how rough the lives of these people is, is not a good indicator of what original hunter gatherers would have lived like.

On this topic; the BBC just released new of the most recently discovered Footage (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12360013) uncontacted tribe in the amazon
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12360013)

The reason why people started farming is probably that hunter-gathering was so successful that they multiplied too much and overextended the restraints of nature.

[Viet Minh]

The reason why people started farming is probably that hunter-gathering was so successful that they multiplied too much and overextended the restraints of nature.

It all started in Sumeria, it all came about relatively quickly; agriculture, capital, towns, law, written language, there's some intriging (yet bullshit) theories about aliens genetically engineering us 'in their image' using elements of neanderthals or something.

[Summerspeaker]

Jensen-style primitivism absolutely expects the whole world to abandon civilization. Ey avoids the moral problems involved by asserting the inevitability of the crash. With these premises, the logic works. But none of us knows the future with that degree of certainty.

[Viet Minh]

Well if its the result of a global nuclear war then I look forward to hunting and gathering cockroaches

[Drosophila]

There are still tribal cultures in some parts of the world who are entirely self-sufficient, but it woulodn't work globally or in any extensively urbanised regions.

How long do you think until capitalist a-holes destroy their homes?

[ChampionDishWasher]

How long do you think until capitalist a-holes destroy their homes?
Not until they find all the unobtainium that's underneath their hunting grounds.

[Delirium]

I dont think that anyone seriously thinks that anarcho-primitivism would be successful as homogenous movement. No reason why they couldn't complement a larger revolution and do as they please afterwords.

[Drosophila]

I like Green Anarchism a lot better.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Anarchism