technology and nature

[socialistfuture]

where do you stand on technology and its control and the defense of the environment.

are you into deep ecology or recycling on a small scale at the most (reformist environmentalism).

please back up arguements with more than opinions.

[Sentinel]

technocracy vs primitism

I don't get that question really, while technocracy does strive for a high tech society, it's a quite complex theory, ideology and social model. Like you put it, 'the opposite of primitivism', you kind of make it simply sound as a society with maximal amount of technology..

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

Perhaps you meant to say technology, or technological civilisation vs primitivism? :unsure:

Anyways, the only open primitivists on this board are restricted, OI is a more appropriate forum for this thread.

Moved.

[pusher robot]

Technology is good because it improves the standard of living. To the extent that environmental quality is necessary for quality of life, technology should be dedicated to preserving (EDIT: or improving!) the environment.

I do not believe in any "intrinsic value" of "the environment."

[Eleftherios]

I believe that as humans, the dominant and most advanced species on this earth, it is our duty to shape the environment according to human needs. I do not believe that this would necessarily harm the environment and I too do not believe in any "intrinsic value" of the environment.

[socialistfuture]

what did the primitivists get banned for?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:19 am
what did the primitivists get banned for?
They didn't get banned. They were restricted because they contribute nothing useful to leftist discussions, but are fun to poke.

[Ele'ill]

Anyways, the only open primitivists on this board are restricted

:D


The problem isn't so much with technology it's with the childish drive to be at the top of the world. To be a world power means your technology is used towards things that neglect the environment.




I believe that as humans, the dominant and most advanced species on this earth, it is our duty to shape the environment according to human needs.

I wouldn't say we're advanced.

When an animal shits where it sleeps it's considered neurotic.


You know when you have a 5/16th sized ratchet lug that you're trying to undue with a ratchet? If you use a short one you don't get the 'torque' that you need thus a longer one is better. Alligators and Crocodiles have this torque and twist law built into them.



They didn't get banned. They were restricted because they contribute nothing useful to leftist discussions, but are fun to poke.

So basically anyone that has a new idea.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by NoXion+June 05, 2007 08:24 am--> (NoXion @ June 05, 2007 08:24 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 05:19 am
what did the primitivists get banned for?
They didn't get banned. They were restricted because they contribute nothing useful to leftist discussions, but are fun to poke. [/b]
Leftist primitivist or non-leftist prims? Or just both?

[Forward Union]

I support anything that benefits humanity as a whole. Though that's not always a maximum reliance on technology. Certain technologies are detrimental to human health - they can pollute the environment and lead to worsening conditions for the working class (like in the industrial revolution)

I think we should control the environment to whatever extent it is useful to do so.

Technology should be decenteralised, democratically run, and green.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:05 pm
So basically anyone that has a new idea.
New? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)

[Fawkes]

what did the primitivists get banned for?
Being anti-humanity.

[socialistfuture]

what about primitists who are very pro humanity but not technology?

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:04 pm


what did the primitivists get banned for?
Being anti-humanity.
I don't think primitivists are anti-humanity so much as they want society to revert to a time when humans lived like wild pigs.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:14 am
what about primitists who are very pro humanity but not technology?
Oxymoron. Loss of technology would cause human suffering and death.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Haraldur+June 06, 2007 12:27 pm--> (Haraldur @ June 06, 2007 12:27 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 12:14 am
what about primitists who are very pro humanity but not technology?
Oxymoron. Loss of technology would cause human suffering and death. [/b]
That's true. Getting rid of technology would push back our life expectancy about fifty years or so and would make our lives a constant struggle for survival

[socialistfuture]

Primitivism: The Movie
Thursday, May 31st, 2007 by Giulianna Lamanna

It's not often that we here at Anthropik stumble upon a piece of news that makes us piss our pants in glee. But yesterday, Ran Prieur posted a brief notice about a new movie in which he's going to appear... a movie that also interviews Daniel Quinn, Derrick Jensen, Richard Heinberg, Chellis Glendinning, Jerry Mander, and Richard Manning. It's called What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire, and it's a documentary about everything we've been saying for the past three years. Holy vindication, Batman! This might just be the greatest thing since no bread.

Naturally, this is a small-budget affair without much marketing muscle behind it. So if you want to see What a Way to Go in your hometown—or just give the filmmakers a helping hand so they can show the movie elsewhere—there's a handy-dandy page on their site explaining how you can help with the "Get Tim and Sally Out of Debt" screening tour. If you happen to have connections to an indie movie theater, a college, a ridiculously liberal church, or if you just have a nice big living room and don't mind inviting people over, contact the producers pronto!

Meanwhile, check out these two YouTube trailers. Awwww, yeah!

go to: http://anthropik.com/2007/05/primitivism-the-movie/
to see the trailers.

[socialistfuture]

it is not anti human to be anti growth. there is also 'appropriate technology' and other concepts that exist.

i might put sum some online debates if i can find them and different primitist and deep ecology writings and web links soon if anyone is interested.

[red team]

it is not anti human to be anti growth. there is also 'appropriate technology' and other concepts that exist.

i might put sum some online debates if i can find them and different primitist and deep ecology writings and web links soon if anyone is interested.

The problem is more to do with poor education methods and an even poorer understanding of what the objectives of education should be. Not surprising since everything including knowledge is commoditized into property when it shares none of the traits that make knowledge comparable to property. Knowledge can be easily shared and this is even truer today with digital reproduction and distribution of information. Property can't be easily shared and after a certain amount of people has been surpassed as compared to the object desired to be shared it becomes farcical.

The solution: simply keep knowledge secret and demand paid for "education" and "qualifications" where you can demonstrate that you belong in the desired class (the one that has the privilege of paying for it).

Seriously, who would believe you even if you've read all the books in a public library and have a photographic memory if you don't have that piece of paper that shows that you paid money that knowledge?

More to the point, given enough educated people, almost all problems associated with the wastefulness and unintended side-effects of technology like pollution can be easily solved. Not to mention that in today's society solving world critical problems like toxic pollution and the environment changing side-effects of technology takes a lower priority to such very important things like drugs for extending erections and hair growth formulas as done by redundant private firms hiring top talent to out compete each other in finding those stupid, selfish and horny consumers more interested in hair growth and orgasms than the future of their descendents.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:08 pm
it is not anti human to be anti growth. there is also 'appropriate technology' and other concepts that exist.

i might put sum some online debates if i can find them and different primitist and deep ecology writings and web links soon if anyone is interested.
Would you consider yourself a primitivist?

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:14 pm
what about primitists who are very pro humanity but not technology?
Being anti-technology inherently entails being anti-human in that getting rid of technological advancements we have made would result in the deaths of millions---possibly billions---of humans.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Mark Twain"
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.That being said, it is obviously antithetical to an advanced society to regard the environment as a limitless resource. Even if a resource proves itself to be so, it is highly prudent to pour all of your trust into something as complex and ever-changing as nature.

Technology should be used to improve the standard of living of all Humans on the planet, as well it should be used to the extent that our expansion doesn't require the destruction of our own natural resources. Hab complexes, Arcologies, etc.